(i) The respondent provided a hearing book number HB1 - HB524 - exhibit 1. > > (ii) An email from the applicant's mother dated 1 August 2025 - exhibit 2 > > (iii) A statement from the applicant's aunt made 6 August 2025 - exhibit 3 > > (iv) A statement from the applicant mother made on 6 August 2025 - exhibit 4 > > (v) A statement from the applicant's aunt marked - exhibit 5 > > (vi) A statement for a member of the applicant's Community, EY, - exhibit 6 > > (vii) A further statement from the applicant's mother - exhibit 7 > > (viii) A statement from a community member, RA, - exhibit 8.

1. Section 501 of the Migration Act is relevant to a decision to refuse or cancel a visa on character grounds. The Minister may refuse to grant a visa if the person does not satisfy the Minister that the person passes the character test (s 501(1)). A person does not pass the character test if the person has a substantial criminal record (s 501(6)(a)). Relevantly, for the purposes of the character test, a substantial criminal record applies if the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more (s 501(7)(c)).
2. On 18 September 2023, the NSW District Court upheld the sentence of 16 months imprisonment, imposed by the NSW Local Court on 24 August 2023.[2] Pursuant to subsection 501(6)(a) of the Migration Act the applicant does not meet the character test.
3. Pursuant to section 501CA(4) of the Migration Act, the decision to cancel the visa may be revoked if the applicant made representations seeking revocation of the mandatory visa cancellation decision and the Tribunal is satisfied that:

(a) the person makes the necessary representations - paragraph 501(CA)(4)(a); and > > (b) The Tribunal is satisfied that: > > > (i) that the person passes the character test as defined by section 501 of the Migration Act - subparagraph 501CA(4)(b)(i); or > > > > (ii) that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked - subparagraph 501CA(4)(b)(ii).

IS THERE ANOTHER REASON WHY THE ORIGINAL DECISION SHOULD BE REVOKED? SUBPARAGRAPH 501CA(4)(B)(II)

1. As the applicant does not pass the character test as required by s 501 of the Migration Act, the issue for this Tribunal to consider is whether there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked pursuant to s 501CA(4)(b)(ii).
2. Pursuant to section 499(1) of the Migration Act, the Minister may give written directions to a body having functions or powers under the Migration 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). In this case, the Tribunal is required to comply with "Direction No 110 - Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA" (Direction 110), made under s 499(1).
3. Clause 5.2 of Direction 110 provides the principles to be considered when deciding whether to revoke a mandatory cancellation under s 501CA of the Migration Act. The 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.

4. Informed by those principles, the Tribunal must consider the primary considerations contained in Part 2 of Direction 110 in deciding whether to revoke a mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen's visa. The primary considerations are set out in clause 8 and the other considerations are set out in Clause 9.
5. The applicant submits that the original decision should be revoked. The Minister contends there are no reasons that carry sufficient weight or significance to satisfy the Tribunal that the original decision should be revoked.

Primary Consideration 1: Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct - 8.1

1. When considering the protection of the Australian community, the Tribunal has kept in mind that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government, and that the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm because of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. Entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege and there is an expectation that non-citizens are, and have been, law abiding, will respect important institutions, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.[3]
2. The Tribunal has also considered:

(a) the nature and seriousness of the applicant's conduct to date; and > > (b) the risk to the Australian community, should the applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.[4]

**_Nature and seriousness of the applicant's conduct - 8.1.1

Offences the subject of the NSW District Court appeal on 18 September 2023._**

1. The Tribunal has been provided with the transcript of the judgment in the appeal of the sentence in the District Court of NSW.[5] It is noted in the judgement that:

On 29 March 2023 an AVO is put in place to protect the person in need of protection being the Appellant's mother. The conditions of that AVO included just the basic conditions that he was not to assault of threaten or intentionally or recklessly damage any property that belonged to her. > > On 23 July 2023 he phoned his mother saying he was going to burn her clothes. The mother went to her home where she saw that he had her clothes there and he set fire to her clothes. When he was arrested the police thought he may have been psychotic, so he was taken to Cumberland Hospital. On the facts he was discharged within 48 hours, and possibly a shorter period of time. > > The Appellant is 24 years of age, his criminal record is relatively short but he does have numerous domestic violence offences: September 2019 assault occasioning actual bodily harm - domestic violence; October 2019 breach of apprehended violence order; October 2019 breach of apprehended violence order; December 2019 breach of apprehended violence order. All those matters resulting in bonds and bonds which were called up at times. October 2021 he's got an offence of stalking; November 2021 breach of apprehended violence order and assault occasioning actual bodily harm resulting in a custodial sentence with a generous allowance for special circumstances. > > The only material before the Court beyond that is the Sentence Assessment Report where he told the report author he was under the influence of alcohol, cannabis and methylamphetamine at the time of the offence which he suggested contributed in part to his actions. He is a repeat domestic violence offender and the victims are his immediate family members. He placed significant blame on the victim in relation to this offence saying that she was denigrating the family with her work, and he wanted to burn her clothes as a way to demonstrate how he felt about her employment. He provided justification saying his mother was not speaking to him the way that he had asked, he showed grandiose ideas and spoke about being of a higher calibre and he could not let his mother continue to be a lady of the night. > > The Assessment Supervision Plan includes referral to Bankstown Mental Health and assessment for drug and alcohol and family violence. In this matter defence sought the Court to consider an intensive corrections order. The Court cannot consider that. Clearly, court orders do not provide protection to the victims of [the applicant], and the Court cannot be satisfied that there would be adequate protection with an intensive corrections order. > > But I am minded to allow the appeal, it appears clear that [the applicant] does have mental health issues, and an extended period of supervision would be appropriate in this matter.

2. The police fact sheet in relation to the matter notes:[6]

... > > The accused and victim's relationship consists of Mother and son. The accused is the child of the victim. The witness is a close friend of the victim. > > The accused and victim are both parties in an Enforceable Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (ADVO) with the accused as the Defendant and victim as the Person in need of protection. > > ... > > Around 10:00arn on the 23rd of July 2023, the victim received a call from the accused as the accused was home alone at this point. The accused stated to the victim that he was going to bur her clothes. After the phone call the victim contacted her cousin to attend ... the home address of the victim and accused. > > Around 3:00pm on the same day, the victim and witness attended the victim's home address where both parties observed the accused with a pile of the victim's clothes in his hands take the clothing to the backyard. > > The accused proceeded to set these clothes on fire using a portable lighter. Afterwards the accused walked inside the hallway attached to the kitchen and started to throw rubbish on the ground all of which was observed by the accused and victim. > > Due to the actions of the accused, the witness contacted for ambulance to attend the location. Due to the nature of the call police were also attached to the triple zero call. When the accused had heard police sirens the accused had decamped from the location. > > A short time later, Police attended the location and spoke with the victim. The victim provided Police with a Domestic Violence Evidence in Chief (DVEC) depicting the accused lighting her clothes on fire. > > Police obtained a Witness Statement from the witness. > > Police obtained photographs of the damaged clothing and rubbish located in the kitchen. > > Shortly after the accused had arrived back at the location. Subsequently the accused was arrested and cautioned. > > ... > > Whilst in custody the accused was showing signs of psychosis and was talking to himself. As results police scheduled the accused under section 22 of Mental Health Act 2007 and conveyed him to Westmead Hospital where he was admitted. The accused was shortly admitted to Cumberland Hospital. Staff at Cumberland Hospital were asked to contact Cumberland Police when the accused had finished receiving his treatment. > > Police from Cumberland Police Area Command contacted Cumberland Hospital on the 27th July 2023 and spoke to staff who confirmed that the accused was still in their care. It was reiterated with Cumberland Hospital staff that the accused be realised into their custody. On the 29th July 2023, police have again contacted Cumberland Hospital to enquire about whether or not the accused was able to be realised into police custody. Cumberland staff informed police that the accused was realised and that Cumberland police did not communicate to them that he was wanted by Cumberland Police. > > ...

3. In cross examination the applicant was taken to the fact sheet and asked about the offences. He confirmed he had committed the offences while he was under the influence and was not in the right state of mind at the time he committed the offences.

1. A results report from the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission[7] reveal that aside from offence for which the applicant was sentenced on 24 August 2023, since 13 November 2019, the applicant has also been convicted of other offences.

Convictions of 23 June 2020, 14 January 2020 and 13 November 2019

1. The results report from the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission also records that on 23 June 2020, the applicant was convicted at Parramatta Local Court of the following:
   • - 4 x fail to appear in accordance with bail acknowledgment for which he received a section 10A conviction with no other penalty.
   • - Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (DV) - T2 - Call up - Breach for which he received a community correction order for 2 years.
   • - 3 x contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic) Call up - Breach for which he received a community correction order of 12 months.
2. The 'call up' sentences to related to earlier convictions received in the Parramatta Local Court on 1 January 2020 and 13 November 2019. Police facts sheets in relation to those offences and contraventions have been provided in the materials to the Tribunal.
3. On 27 December 2019, the applicant was arrested and charged with contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic) and failed to appear in accordance with bail. The facts sheet in relation to the applicant's offences provides as follows:[8]

... there is a current and enforceable apprehended violence order naming [the applicant's brother] as the person in need of protection and the accused as the defendant. > > [the applicant's brother] is currently in custody after recently been charged, however [the applicant's mother] still resides at the house on her own. The accused is also has an outstanding warrant for his arrest and as a result has been avoiding police. [the applicant's mother] has made it clear to him that she does not want him at the house and does contact police whenever he attends the home. > > About 11.20pm on the 26th of December 2019 [the applicant's mother] contacted police and reported that the accused was attempting to break into the home. About 1am on the 27th of December 2019 police attended the location and sighted the front door to be open. Police observed the accused poke his head out from a nearby room, at which time police announced their office and called out for him to present himself. The accused attended the front door and police immediately observed a 3cm laceration to his forehead, which was open but not bleeding. The accused, who is known for evading police, was quickly detained and moved to the front driveway of the property. Checks revealed the existence of the warrant and the apprehended violence order. The accused stated to police that [the applicant's mother] hit him in the head with a high heel shoe, which caused the laceration. > > Whilst on scene at the location the accused stated to police that he knew that the apprehended violence order was in existence and that he could not be at the location. The accused stated he went there to wish [the applicant's mother] a Merry Christmas and collect some belongings. > > Police spoke with [the applicant's mother] and observed her to have a deep laceration to the top of her lip. Police spoke with both persons however both provided conflicting versions and were unwilling to assist police in the matter. The accused was therefore arrested in relation to the outstanding warrant and contravention of the apprehended violence order based on police finding him at the address for which he has been restricted from. > > An Ambulance attended the location and assessed the accused before transporting him under police guard to Auburn Hospital for treatment. The accused was treated by doctors

On 31 October 2019, the applicant was arrested and charged with contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic) and failing to appear in accordance with bail. The police fact sheet provides as follows in relation to the offences the applicant was charged with:[9]

The Accused and the Victim have known each other for twenty one (21) years, as they are twin brothers. There is currently an enforceable Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (ADVO) in place, listing the Accused as the Defendant and the Victim as the Person in need of protection (PINOP). > > ... > > At 8:05am on Thursday the 31st of October 2019 Police attended [the unit at which the applicant's brother resides] and knocked on the door which was answered by the victim [applicant's brother]. Police questioned the victim if the accused was currently at the location as he had two outstanding warrants and needed to be arrested. The victim explained he was not sure if the accused was currently at the location but invited Police inside to look. Police located the accused sleeping in a bed upstairs. > > Police conducted checks on the accused discovering there was an enforceable ADVO in place between the Accused and the Victim, stating the Accused was not to reside at [the unit where the applicant's brother resides] or be in contact with the Victim; except through a lawyer. Due to the accused to be residing at the location and also in the same household as the victim. Police subsequently cautioned the Accused and placed him under arrest. > > ...

On 21 October 2019, the applicant was arrested and charged with contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic) and two counts of fail to appear in accordance with bail. The facts sheet provides as follows:[10]

The Accused and the Victim have known each other for twenty one (21) years, as they are twin brothers. There is currently an enforceable Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (ADVO) in place, listing the Accused as the Defendant and the Victim as the Person in need of protection (PINOP). > > ... > > On the 21st of October 2019, the Accused called Police as he had a verbal agreement in the past week in relation to the Victim taking the Accused's laptop, however, has since not returned it. Police attended [the applicant's brother's address] a short time later and knocked on the door. The Accused presented himself at the door. > > Upon obtaining details police conducted checks discovering there was an enforceable ADVO in place between the Accused and the Victim, stating the Accused was not to reside at [the applicant's brother's address] or be in contact with the Victim; except through a lawyer. > > Police subsequently cautioned the Accused and placed him under arrest. The Accused stated several different version in an attempt to explain why he was there. The Accused stated words to the effect of "I've been here all week... I Just wanted to get my stuff". Police asked the Accused if he understood the conditions of the ADVO in place to which he stated "I had no where else to go".

On 26 September 2019, the applicant was arrested and charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm (DV). The following is recorded in the fact sheet:[11]

... The Victim and the Accused are twin brothers... and reside together ... > > About 1:30am on the 22nd of September 2019 the Victim had an argument with the Accused at their residents. The argument was regarding the Victim allegedly taking a cigarette from the Accused. > > As a result of the argument the Accused grabbed a large trophy and hit the Victim on the left side of his forehead, causing a large laceration. The Victim subsequently called Police. > > A short time later Police attended,... and were approached by the Victim who was outside. Police immediately observed a large laceration and bleeding to the Victims forehead, including blood across the Victim's face. Police obtained photographs of the Victims injuries with his permission and contacted paramedics to attend the location. > > The Victim told Police that he believes the Accused's aggressive behaviour was influenced by the consumption of illicit drugs. > > ... > > After speaking with the Victim, Police knocked on the door of the Victim's home, ... which was answered by the Victim's mother. Police requested to search the house for the Accused to which the mother agreed. Police conducted a search of the house, however were unable to locate the Accused or the trophy which was said to have been used to hit the Victim over the head. > > Police questioned the Victim's mother as to where the Accused went, to which she advised that she had kicked the Accused out of the house as a result of the incident. At the time of the incident there was another family friend present at the location, however did not witness the incident and had only heard an argument between the Accused and Victim. The mother has then declined to provide any further information to Police. > > ...

In cross examination, the applicant agreed that he had hit his brother with a trophy. He confirmed that it was in self-defence as his brother was armed with an axe. He stated at the hearing he takes full responsibility, and it should never have happened. He denied he consumed drugs at the time. The applicant stated that his brother was manipulative and toxic and had been verbally and physically abusive to him throughout his years of growing up.

The results report from the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission notes that on 11 January 2022, the applicant was fined $600 at Bankstown Local Court for possessing a prohibited drug. The police facts for that offence record that after searching the applicant, police located a small clear resealable bag containing a crystal rock substance believed to be methylamphetamine (ice).[12]

1. On 2 February 2022, the applicant was convicted in Bankstown Local Court for the following four offences:
   • - _Steal from person value ... one of the greatest difficulties is that you keep breaching the orders that this Court makes for a variety of reasons, I do not know whether it is drugs, alcohol or simply just some issues that you have. In relation to the matter you cannot keep coming back here, the Court cannot keep imposing bonds for breaches and expect to walk away without any consequence.

4. In relation to the offence of stalk/intimidate intend fear physical/mental harm and the stealing charges, the sentencing judge imposed a fine of $1,000.
5. In relation to the assault occasioning actual body harm and the contravening the ADVO the sentencing judge stated:

...I have taken into account the plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity. I have also taken into account what I have said, your record of a number of breaches. As I see it the bond had expired earlier last year anyway before these offences were committed. In any event I intend to impose a term of imprisonment. > > YOU WILL BE CONVICTED, SENTENCED TO A TERM OF IMPRISONMENT. I FIX A NON-PAROLE PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS, AN ADDITIONAL PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS MAKING A HEAD SENTENCE OF 12 MONTHS. > > I FIND SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES TO ADJUST THE NORMAL STATUTORY RATIO. THAT SENTENCE WILL COMMENCE ON 21 DECEMBER 2021 WHICH WILL MEAN IN MAY OF THIS YEAR YOU WILL BE ENTITLED TO BE RELEASED, AND THEN YOU WILL BE ON PAROLE FOR SIX MONTHS FOLLOWING THAT AND YOU ARE SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS BY THE PAROLE AUTHORITY. > > If you do not comply with those conditions you may very well find yourself back in custody. Do you understand that?

6. The applicant responded 'yes'.
7. In relation to the offence of 5 October 2021, the police facts record:[14]

Around 7:00 pm on Tuesday 5 October 2021, the victim was asleep in her bedroom and woke up to the voice of the accused asking for money and insulting her. The victim stayed in her bed to avoid him and to avoid aggravating the accused. The accused entered the bedroom of the victim and began throwing her clothes and other items around saying, 'Is this what is important to you? Clothes, shoes?' and began calling her names. The accused threatened the victim saying, 'If you don't give me the money, I will take your phone.' The victim replied, 'You can not take my phone.' As the victim had a migraine, the victim went to the petrol station to get some Panadol. After returning from the petrol station the victim went back home, cooked some rice and lied down on the couch. The victim returned to her bedroom upstairs to go to bed and the accused continued arguing with the victim and demanding money from her, he came into her bedroom and threw her jewellery box onto the floor box and began throwing her clothes and shoes around. The accused demanded to the victim, 'You have to give me $200 or else I will not give you back your phone.' The victim became overwhelmed, she felt scared of the accused. She was worried that the accused would escalate his behaviour to violence. The reason that the victim was worried about this is because the accused has been violent towards her in the past. The victim left the house to avoid violence from the accused. As the victim left her house she saw the accused going through her handbag. The victim walked from her home to Bass Hill Police Station to report the incident. The victim believes the jewellery box may be broken as a result of the accused throwing it to the floor. The victim is the owner of the jewellery box. The victim is the owner of the mobile phone and did not give consent for the accused to take her phone. The victim believes the accused still has her phone. The behaviour of the accused in this incident has made the victim feel unsafe and afraid as a result the victim does not want to accused returning to her home. The victim is also afraid that the accused may become physically violent with the victim, as he has in the past. At the time of this report the victim believed that the accused was still at her home. There were no children at the home at the time of the incident.

8. In cross examination the applicant denied taking his mother's phone. He said he was just asking his mother for money owed to him.
9. In relation to the events of 15 November 2021, the police facts note:[15]

... the POI and VIC had a discussion with the POI asking for a monetary loan. The VIC gave the POI $50.00 made up of one (1) x $10.00 and two (2) x $20.00 denominations. The POI began a verbal argument with the VIC about the amount given to him and the mistreatment he receives from the VIC when compared to his brother the NOK. At the height of the argument, the POI grabbed the purse from a nearby bed and went upstairs to a bedroom. The VIC followed and confronted the POI. The pair fought over the purse; however, the VIC was positioned behind the POI attempting to grab the purse from the POI. The POI has taken $1250.00 cash from the purse, pocketing the money and dropping the purse before making his way out of the bedroom and toward the staircase. At the top of the staircase, the VIC grabbed the T-Shirt of the POI from behind. The POI has swung his arm back towards the VIC, striking her in the face and causing a minor abrasion to the top lip. The VIC felt immediate pain which caused her to recoil back. The POI continued downstairs where he sat on the couch. The VIC followed and confronted the POI again. A second verbal argument ensued which resulted in the POI getting up off the couch, throwing a nearby tall mirror to the ground and destroying it.

10. The facts were put to the applicant in cross examination. The applicant stated at the hearing that the incident did not happen, and he did not remember it. He also denied taking the money from his mother, striking her or throwing the mirror to the ground.
11. When it was put to the applicant that he was convicted of the offences relating to both these incidents, he agreed that he had been, but that was because he believed that it would get him out of prison. The Tribunal notes that the transcript reveals that the applicant was represented at the Local Court hearing. Despite the denials of the applicant, the Tribunal finds that the applicant did plead guilty to those offences and the offences did occur. The applicant was legally represented at the hearing and didn't seek to appeal the matters when he did receive a prison term.

Conclusion on the Nature and Serious of the Conduct

1. Subclause 8.1.1(1) of Direction 110 specifies that the following types of crimes as viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and Australian Community.

(a) That violent and/or sexual crimes, crimes of a violent and/or sexual nature against women or children (regardless of the sentence imposed) and acts of family violence (regardless of whether there is a conviction, or regardless of the sentence imposed) are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian community (paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a)). > > (b) The sentence imposed by the courts for a crime or crimes (paragraph 8.1.1(1)(c)). > > (c) The impact of the offending on any victims (paragraph 8.1.1(1)(d)). > > (d) The frequency of the applicant's offending and/or whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness (paragraph 8.1.1(1)(e)). > > (e) The cumulative effect of repeated offending (paragraph 8.1.1(1)(f)). > > (f) Whether the applicant had re-offended since being formally warned, or otherwise being made aware, in writing, about the consequences of further offending in terms of the applicant's migration status (paragraph 8.1.1(1)(h)).

2. The Tribunal finds that the nature and conduct of the applicant is very serious. The applicant's criminal record demonstrates that between 2019 and July 2023, the applicant has been convicted of multiple offences, in particular repeated breached of apprehended violence orders. Since that time, he has either been in jail or detention. The Tribunal accept that in relation to the offences of failing to appear in accordance with bail acknowledgement for which he was convicted on 13 November 2019 and of 23 June 2020, that the applicant was sentenced pursuant to s 10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) and an inference could be made that the nature of the conduct regarding those offences were not serious.
3. However, in relation to the balance of the offences, the applicant has had a frequent history of offending, with the majority offences being domestic violence offences, including numerous breaches of apprehended violence orders.
4. Those offences the applicant has been convicted of are offences which involve family violence. Offences involving family violence, are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian Community under paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a) of Direction 110.
5. The overall criminal history indicates that that applicant's offending has escalated in frequency and severity from 2019 and up until 2023. The applicant has also received increasingly severe sentences for these offences, beginning with a 2-year Community Correction Order[16] increasing to a term of imprisonment of 12 months and later a term of imprisonment of 16 months.
6. 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. The applicant's mother did not provide details of the harm that had been caused to her by the applicant in cross examination. However, the imposition of apprehended domestic violence indicates that the mother and brother were both in need of protecting in relevant periods. The applicant has shown a disregard apprehended violence orders that were put in place to protect his mother and brother and received a number of contravention convictions from 2020 to 2023.
7. Having considered Direction 110, the findings of the Local Court and District Court in sentencing, the sentences imposed by the Courts and the totality of the applicant's escalating criminal offending, the Tribunal finds that the nature of the applicant's conduct has been very serious.

1. Clause 8.1.2(1) of Direction 110 provides that in considering the need to protect the Australian community from harm, the Tribunal should have regard to the Government's view that the Australian community's tolerance for any risk of future harm lessens as the seriousness of the potential harm increases.
2. In assessing the risk posed by the applicant to the Australian community, decision-makers must consider, cumulatively:

(a) the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct; and

(b) the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account:

(i) information and evidence on the risk of the 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 there would be harm to individuals should the applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct as he already has. The Tribunal also finds that based on his previous conduct, there is a likelihood that the applicant would engage in further criminal or other serious conduct.
2. The applicant has previously had his visa cancelled. On 16 March 2022, following the applicant's convictions on 2 February 2022 (for which he received a sentence of 12 months imprisonment) the applicant's visa was mandatorily cancelled pursuant to s 501(3A) of the Migration Act.[17] On 29 March 2022, the applicant sought revocation of the mandatory cancellation.[18] On 9 February 2023, a delegate decided to revoke the cancellation.[19] On the same day the applicant acknowledged receiving notice of the decision to revoke the cancellation of his visa and signed a document that stated:[20]

I understand that if I engage in further criminal or other serious conduct, this may again result in any visa I hold being cancelled on character grounds, and in this case my past conduct and previous relevant information held by the Department can also be reconsidered.

3. Despite that earlier cancellation, the applicant did offence again and they were offences involving family violence. Accordingly, there is a substantial risk of the applicant engaging in such conduct again in the future. Prior periods of imprisonment and a previous visa cancellation have not acted as sufficient deterrent for the applicant re-offending. The applicant has repeatedly breached the conditions of apprehended domestic violence orders.
4. In his personal circumstances form relating to the revocation of the cancellation of the visa, the applicant indicated that he was under the influence of alcohol and drugs and was abused as a child and as an adult, and that he had completed some rehabilitation programs while in custody.[21]
5. A sentencing assessment report completed prior to his sentencing in the Local Court on 24 August 2023[22] noted that following his arrest the applicant was scheduled under the Mental Health Act and admitted to Cumberland Hospital. He stated that he had undergone treatment to address depression and anxiety and was discharged with advice to address his drug use. It is noted in the report that the applicant stated that he was under the influence of alcohol, cannabis, and methamphetamines at the time of the offence. He did not solely attribute the offence to being under the influence, however, he stated that it had contributed in part to his actions. It was also noted in the report that during discussions about his offence, the applicant placed significant blame on the victim by indicating that she was degrading the family with her work. He stated that he burnt her clothes as a symbolic way to demonstrate how he felt about her employment. The applicant provided justifications for his actions in stating that his mother was not speaking to him in the way that he had asked. It is also noted in the report that the applicant's terminology during the interview indicated grandiose ideals with the applicant stating that he was of a 'higher calibre' and that he 'could not let' his mother continue to be a 'lady of the night'.
6. Even though he made appointments to see professional while in detention, the applicant conceded in cross examination that he had subsequently missed some of those appointments. He stated at the hearing that he found it hard to speak to the right people and he does not believe he has ever been properly diagnosed. The applicant stated that if he was released, he was prepared to get assistance. He stated that his issues have been with his family, and he has not had issues with anybody else.
7. The Tribunal accepts that the act of violence committed by the applicant have all been in the context of the applicant's family. However, the applicant has shown a general disregard for the law, including breaching apprehended violence orders and being caught with drugs. The applicant indicated that if released he would live with his aunt. However, his aunt is presently living with his mother. He noted that despite what his family wanted he did not want to live with them because he realised it was problematic for him. He indicated that he would work with a cousin. The applicant's aunt minimised the applicant's behaviour in cross examination and indicated that the applicant's mother had mental health issues and had made the allegations against her son wrongly.
8. While the applicant's aunt and mother referred to his mental health assistance in their statements, both conceded in cross examination that those remarks were meant in relation to the applicant's brother and not the applicant himself.
9. While the applicant did at time indicate remorse for his actions and his aunt and mother indicated that he suffered from trauma, there is very little in the evidence to demonstrate that the applicant has received any diagnosis or significant treatment for mental health conditions or his drug use. The applicant has some insight into the fact that has committed the offences in the context of his family, but there is very little evidence that he has received treatment in that regard. The applicant has had some opportunity to access that assistance while in detention and but has failed to turn up for appointments. It remains untested how the applicant will conduct himself when again faced with his family if he was released to the community. He has not previously been deterred by the imposition of ADVO's, imprisonment or the previous cancellation of his visa. His criminal history demonstrates a disregard for Australian law.
10. The applicant remains a risk of harm to the Australian Community.
11. Having regard to the nature and seriousness of the applicant's offending and conduct, the potential significant harm to the Australian community should the applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct, and taking into account the continued likelihood of the applicant'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 of the visa.

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

1. Direction 110 requires the Tribunal to consider whether the applicant 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'.
2. 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. As noted above, the applicant has been convicted of domestic violence offences against his mother and his twin brother, each of which fall within the category of 'family violence' for the purposes of Direction 110. The applicant has been convicted of the following:

(a) Damage to property by fire/exp
> (b) Stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc harm and assault occasioning actual bodily harm (DV) on 2 February 2022, where the applicant assaulted his mother after she confronted him for stealing $1,250 from her for which he received a fine of $1,000 and a sentence of 12 months imprisonment. > > (c) Assault occasioning actual bodily harm on 14 January 2020, where the applicant struck his twin brother to the forehead with a trophy, causing a large laceration, for which received a sentence of a Community Correction Order of 2 years.

2. The applicant has also been convicted of breaching ADVO conditions The applicant has engaged in conduct constituting family violence as defined under Direction 110.
3. 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 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.
2. Paragraph 8.3(2) also requires the Tribunal to have regard to the strength, nature, and duration of any other ties that the applicant has to the Australian community, when considering whether to cancel the applicant's visa. The Tribunal must have regard to:

(a) how long the applicant has resided in Australia, including whether he arrived as a young child, noting that: > > > (i) less weight should be given where the applicant began offending soon after arriving in Australia (paragraph 8.3(2)(a)(i)); and > > > > (ii) more weight should be given to time the applicant has spent contributing positively to the Australian community (paragraph 8.3(2)(a)(ii)); > > (b) the strength, duration, and nature of any family or social links with Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia (paragraph 8.3(2)(b)).

3. The applicant first arrived in Australia when he was 11 years old on 29 October 2009 and has remained in Australia.[23] The applicant stated that he completed his schooling up until year 12, and that he was employed at Woolworths from 2021 to 2023, at Footlocker from 2018 to 2021, and at Coles from 2016 to 2018.[24] However, the court documents refer to him at various points as being unemployed.
4. The applicant states that he played basketball for the Parramatta Wildcats, volunteered at a homeless shelter and "midnight basketball", and was a member of a dancing community group.[25]
5. The applicant has identified the following close family member in Australia:[26]

(i) his mother > > (ii) his twin brother > > (iii) his paternal grandmother > > (iv) his partner > > (v) his son

6. The applicant also identified numerous uncles, aunts, nieces, nephews, cousins and 3 grandparents in Australia.
7. The applicant stated in his personal circumstances form that that his relationship with his partner is 'complicated' and that she does not let him see their child. She is from Sudan and does not want her parents to know he is the father because he is from Sierra Leone.[27] The applicant indicated at the hearing that he would want to be a part of his son's life, but that he does not presently see his son. He stated that the last time he spoke to his son's mother was about a month earlier.
8. It is evident from cross examination that the applicant's mother and aunt love him and have done their best to assist him. However, the applicant's mother is the victim of his offending.
9. The applicant has also provided two letters from members of his community (exhibit 6 and exhibit 8). They refer to the applicant's role in volunteer youth groups, basketball and community activities.
10. The applicant has spent around 16 years in Australia having arrived as a child. He has both immediate and extended family in Australia and has spent some time positively contributing to the Australian community through his schooling, employment, and volunteer work. The Tribunal finds that primary consideration 3 weighs heavily in the applicant's favour.

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, the applicant has a son who is presently 5 years old. The child lives with his mother and the applicant states in his personal circumstances for that he used to see his son twice a week. In cross examination the applicant stated that the last time he saw his son was prior to going to prison the first time which would have been on 2 February 2022. That is more than three years ago. As noted above, there are also issues in the applicant seeing his son due to his son's mother being of a Sudanese background and her parents not approving of their relationship. The applicant also stated that he had issues with the applicant's mother regarding fidelity and that he was not presently better placed to see his son.
3. Given the applicant has not had a significant relationship with his son to date, primary consideration 4 weighs moderately in the favour of revoking the cancellation of the 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 the applicant 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 Direction 110 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,[28] 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,[29] at [31]-[35] per Moshinsky, Stewart, and Jackman JJ.
6. In RCLN v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs,[30] 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. The applicant has been convicted of a very serious offence which involves violence and family violence (paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a) of the Direction). Given the applicant's acts of family violence against his mother and his brother, the Tribunal finds that the Australian community would expect the applicant'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. The applicant has claimed he would be murdered if he were to return to Sierra Leone. His father and grandfather were killed in the war.[31] The nature of the applicant's claim indicates a potential for Australia's international non-refoulement obligations to be engaged in relation to the applicant.
3. The applicant is not presently covered by a protection finding and it is open to him to apply for a protection visa during which the applicant's claim regarding Australia's non-refoulement obligations would be fully assessed.
4. The Tribunal also accepts that the legal consequence of a visa cancellation decision is that the applicant will be an unlawful non-citizen and even if a protection application is made, he may continue to be subject to a period in immigration detention. Even if no protection claim is made, the applicant 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. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal gives only moderate weight in favour of the revocation of cancelation if the visa in relation to this consideration.

1. Subclause 9.2 of Direction 110 requires consideration of the extent of any impediments that the applicant may face if removed from Australia to Sierra Leone.
2. In his personal circumstances form accompanying the 2023 revocation request, the applicant stated that he would face poverty, homelessness, "danger of life", and no medical help for mental health.[32]
3. The applicant arrived in Australia as a child. The applicant gave evidence that he has no family members in Sierra Leone. This consideration weighs heavily in favour of revoking the cancellation of the applicant's visa.

1. Clause 9.3 of Direction 110 provides that the Tribunal must consider any impact on Australian business interests if the applicant 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],[33] 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 the applicant 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 the applicant's visa. The nature of the applicant's offending and conduct is very serious and should he reoffend again, it would cause harm. There is also a risk of the applicant reoffending given his breach of apprehended violence orders and his repeated offending even after he was jailed and has previously has a cancellation of his visa revoked. In those circumstances the Tribunal considers there is a real risk to the community that the applicant will reoffend. The Tribunal has found that while the has shown some remorse and insight for his offending, he has had very little rehabilitation or diagnosis.
   2. Given the nature of his offences, the consideration concerning family violence weighs heavily against the revocation of he cancellation of the visa,

1. In relation to the strength, nature and duration of the applicant's ties to the Australian community, the Tribunal accepts that if the decision is not revoked that it will have some impact on the applicant's relationship with his son. The applicant has considerable ties to friends and community, having arrived in Australia when he was a young child and with most of his family in Australia. The Tribunal find this consideration weighs heavily in favour of revocation.
2. The consideration regarding the best interests of minor children being the applicant's son weighs moderately in favour of revocation. The applicant has not had a significant relationship with his son and has had very little contact 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 the applicant, but at present they only weigh moderately in favour of revocation as there is no protection application or protection finding. In relation to the extent of impediments if the applicant is removed to Australia they also weigh heavily in favour of revocation as the applicant has been in Australia since he was a child and has little to no family in Sierra Leone. The consideration concerning business interests weighs neutrally.
2. The applicant 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. The applicant's offending has been repeated even in the face of imprisonment, a previous cancellation of his visa and imposition of ADVO's. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that there is no other reason which would warrant the revocation of the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa.
3. For the reasons given above the Tribunal affirms the decision of a delegate of the Minister not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa.

[1] s500(6H) of the Migration Act

[12] Exhibit [1759] EngR 28; 1, HB 265.

[16] see s 8 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).

[27] Exhibit 1, HB 84 - HB85.

[28] [2019] FCAFC 185.

[29] [2023] FCAFC 68.

[30] [2024] FCA 876.

[33] [2023] FCAFC 138.