1. The Applicant was born in Iran in 1991. On 17 September 2012, he arrived in Australia by boat.[7] He was 20 years old at the time of his arrival. He has not left Australia since that time.
2. On 9 May 2016, the Applicant applied for a SHEV.[8]
3. On 10 January 2017, the Applicant was granted a SHEV as a delegate of the Minister found the Applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a) of the Act.[9] Accordingly, the Applicant was found to have a protection finding within the meaning of s 197C(5)(a) of the Act.[10]
4. On 9 December 2021, the Applicant made a subsequent valid application for a SHEV.[11]
5. On 21 June 2022, the Applicant was arrested by New South Wales police in relation to attempted possession of a commercial quantity of a border-controlled substance, namely methamphetamine.[12]
6. On 16 February 2023, the subsequent SHEV application was converted to an application for a Resolution of Status (subclass 851) visa ('RSV') by operation of Reg 2.08G of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth).[13]
7. On 30 October 2023, the Applicant was sentenced at the District Court of New South Wales at Campbelltown to one charge of attempting to possess a commercial quantity of a border-controlled drug, namely methamphetamine.[14] He was sentenced to a head sentence of four years nine months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years.[15] The head sentence and non-parole period was backdated to commence on 21 June 2022, meaning that the Applicant would become eligible for parole on 20 June 2025.[16]
8. On 27 June 2024, the Applicant's existing SHEV was mandatorily cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Act ('mandatory cancellation decision').[17]
9. By operation of s 501F of the Act, his application for a RSV was also refused.[18] However, subsequent Department advice dated 15 October 2024 confirms that irrespective of this refusal, the Applicant's previous protection finding within the meaning of s 197C(5)(a) of the Act remains relevant for the purposes of s 197C(3).[19] This means that s 197C(3) of the Act operates to prevent the Applicant being involuntarily removed to Iran.[20]
10. On 24 July 2024, the Applicant made representations to the Department seeking revocation of the mandatory cancellation decision.[21]
11. Further material and submissions were provided by the Applicant to the Department on 20 August 2024,[22] 26 August 2024[23] and 15 November 2024.[24]
12. On 17 December 2024, a delegate of the Respondent decided not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's SHEV visa under s 501CA(4).[25]
13. On 18 December 2024, the Applicant was notified of the non-revocation decision and signed an acknowledgement of receipt of the decision.[26]
14. On 20 June 2025, the Applicant's non-parole period expired.[27] He was granted Commonwealth parole and taken into immigration detention the same day where he has remained since.[28]

1. The Applicant was sentenced on 30 October 2023 at the District Court of New South Wales after pleading guilty to one charge of attempting to possess a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug, being methamphetamine.[29] The sentencing judge noted that this offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.[30] The sentencing judge held that the maximum penalty of life imprisonment 'indicates the very high level of seriousness with which the legislator clearly regards this type of offence.'[31] The amount of drugs involved in this case was 10.21 kgs of pure methamphetamine.[32]

1. The sentencing judge had before her an agreed statement of facts.[33] The facts as noted by the sentencing judge are as follows.
2. On 15 February 2022, a consignment arrived in Australia by air freight. The consignment contained three boxes and had originated in Iraq.[34] The boxes were address to 'Mr Ali Nasari' at an address in Moorebank. The goods were declared as "Sanden SP-10 Lubricant."[35]
3. On 17 February 2022, Australian Border Force officers x-rayed the consignment and identified certain anomalies. The officers proceeded to open the three boxes and found that they each contained 12 tins labelled as the lubricant. Officers opened one tin and found it contained a liquid. Presumptive testing of that liquid returned a positive result for methamphetamine.[36] A forensic analysis of all 36 tins was undertaken. It was found that 32 tins contained 8.726 kgs of pure methamphetamine.[37] The remaining four tins were found to contain 1.487 kgs of pure methamphetamine.[38] This equalled a total sum of 10.213 kgs of pure methamphetamine.[39]
4. From about 17 February 2022, the shipping company acting for the consignor sent multiple emails to the broker to request information on the status of the shipment.[40]
5. The next part of the agreed facts stated that the customs broker had telephone contact regarding the consignment with a male identifying himself as 'Ali' and using a mobile number ending in 831. Her Honour stated that:

Counsel for the offender accepted that given the offender's subsequent use and possession of a mobile phone with that number, which I will come to shortly in the agreed facts, that there was no issue that it was the offender that was involved in this telephone contact. I also confirmed that I should proceed on the basis that the communication took place at the end of February 2022.

6. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant disputed during his evidence that he was the person who had this telephone contact. The Applicant's evidence regarding this is explored in the reasons below.
7. On 15 June 2022, the broker contacted the Applicant (whom he understood to be 'Ali') on the mobile number ending in 831 and advised him the consignment had been released from customs and was ready for delivery.[41] The Applicant requested the consignment be delivered to an alternative address. The broker then received a text message providing a different delivery address in Austral.[42] Her Honour noted that there was no issue that it was the Applicant that had spoken to the broker and that he provided the alternative address.[43] The broker contacted the Applicant and advised that the parcel would be delivered on 21 June 2022 between 9am and 12pm.[44]
8. On the morning of 21 June 2022, the Applicant telephoned the broker from the 831 number and asked when the package would be delivered. He was advised it would be delivered sometime that morning.[45] At about 10.30am, the Applicant was observed by police to be standing on the street near his home address in Austral, which was the same street the consignment had been redirected to.[46]
9. At about 10.45am, a police officer disguised as a courier driver drove a white van past the new address which had been nominated for delivery. Police observed the Applicant get in his car and follow the van. When the van stopped at the nominated address, the Applicant parked behind the van and waved his arms out of the driver's side window.[47] The Applicant then exited his car and approached the driver's side window of the van. The Applicant had an exchange with the undercover operative and the Applicant said he was 'Ali' and directed the officer to place the three boxes on the footpath.[48] The Applicant assisted the officer to unload the boxes. The officer then drove away. The Applicant was then approached by police. One of the officers said 'Ali' to which the Applicant replied 'yes.'[49]
10. As the Applicant was being placed under arrest he began to make a call on an iPhone. Police took possession of that phone and confirmed that the phone ending in 831 had made that call.[50] The Applicant was then arrested.[51] The Applicant denied knowing anything about the boxes.[52]
11. The agreed facts conceded that there was no evidence that the Applicant knew the precise weight of the border-controlled drug, nor was there any evidence that he was involved in facilitating the importation of the consignment into Australia.[53]

Facts requiring resolution by the sentencing judge

1. Her Honour however had to resolve a number of factual disputes between the parties. Those facts which were not agreed were as follows.
2. Her Honour noted that from about 2 February 2022, a person purporting to be the consignee ('Ali Nasari') had email contact with the broker using a particular email address. Her Honour had to resolve the issue as to who was engaging in this email correspondence. The prosecution submitted that it was the Applicant who engaged in the email correspondence, whereas the Applicant's defence submitted that Her Honor could not reach such a finding.[54]
3. A further email was sent on 23 February 2022 from the same email address requesting updates on the consignment. Her Honour had to resolve whether the Applicant was involved in this email correspondence.[55]
4. There was a further email sent on 1 June 2022 from a different email address enquiring about the consignment. The sender of that email did not sign off with a name but advised that they can be contacted on the 831 number.[56]
5. Her Honour was not satisfied that the Applicant was linked to either email addresses that were used on 2 February 2022, 23 February 2022 or 1 June 2022.
6. In regard to the later email of 1 June 2022, Her Honour stated:[57]

In terms of the email on 1 June 2022, which is set out in paragraph 20, which was from a different address, [email address redacted] enquiring about the consignment, there is no evidence linking the offender to this address. > > However, what is present in this instance is the fact that the number ending in 831 is nominated in the email as the way in which the person can be contacted. > > There being no issue the offender had used that number in late February 2022 to contact the customs broker and that he again used that number later on 15 June 2022. Further, that the mobile phone with that number was found in the offender's possession at the time of his arrest on 21 June 2022.

7. Her Honour was not satisfied that the Applicant sent the email dated 1 June 2022.[58] Her Honour found that the possibility cannot be excluded that someone else might have sent that email and nominated that mobile number as to how contact could be made, which is consistent with the Applicant being the one who was going to take physical possession of the consignment.[59]
8. What is clear from the above, is that the sentencing judge was required to resolve certain factual issues that were in dispute by the parties. Her Honour was not satisfied that the Applicant was the person who sent the emails, but she was satisfied that the Applicant was the person using the 831 number. That state of satisfaction was reached after the concession from the Applicant's own counsel at the plea hearing that it was the Applicant who placed the phone call to the customs broker in late February 2022.

1. The Applicant was sentenced to a total term of four years nine months imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years.[60] The Applicant's sentence was backdated to commence on 21 June 2022 (being the date of arrest).[61] Her Honour allowed a 25% discount for the Applicant's plea of guilty.[62]

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

(a) the Minister is satisfied that the person does not pass the character test because of the operation of: > > (i) paragraph (6)(a) (substantial criminal record), on the basis of paragraph (7)(a), (b) or (c); or > > (ii) paragraph (6)(e) (sexually based offences involving a child); and > > (b) the person is serving a sentence of imprisonment, on a full-time basis in a custodial institution, for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.

2. Section 501(6)(a) provides that, for the purposes of this section, a person does not pass the character test if the person has a 'substantial criminal record' (as defined by s 501(7)). Section 501(7)(c) provides that a person has a 'substantial criminal record' if the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.
3. Section 501CA of the Act applies if the Minister makes a decision under s 501(3A) to cancel a visa that has been granted to a person. Section 501CA(4) provides that the Minister may revoke the original decision if:

(a) the person makes representations in accordance with the invitation; and > > (b) the Minister is satisfied: > > (i) that the person passes the character test (as defined by section 501); or > > (ii) that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked.

4. Section 500(1)(ba) provides that an application may be made to the Tribunal for review of decisions of a delegate of the Minister under s 501CA(4) not to revoke a decision to cancel a visa.

1. Section 499(1) of the Act provides that the Minister may give written directions to a person or body having functions or powers under the Act if the directions are about: (a) the performance of those functions; or (b) the exercise of those powers. Section 499(2A) provides that a person or body must comply with a direction under s 499(1).
2. Such a direction has been given under s 499 of the Act, namely Direction 110 - Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA ('Direction 110'). The purpose of Direction 110 is to guide decision-makers in performing functions or exercising powers under ss 501 and 501CA of the Act.

1. Paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110 contains the principles which provide the framework within which decision-makers should approach their task of deciding whether to refuse or cancel a non-citizen's visa under s 501, or whether to revoke a mandatory cancellation under s 501CA. Those 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 measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community. > > (5) Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, or by other non-citizens who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only for a short period of time. > > (6) With respect to decisions to refuse, cancel, and revoke cancellation of a visa, Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age. > > (7) Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the non-citizen's conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation. > > (8) The inherent nature of certain conduct such as family violence is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation, even if the information available at the time of consideration suggests that the non-citizen does not pose a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.

2. Paragraph 6 of Direction 110 provides that, informed by the principles in paragraph 5.2, a decision-maker must take into account the considerations identified in sections 8 and 9, where relevant to the decision.
3. Paragraph 7 provides guidance in taking the relevant considerations into account. It states:

(1) In applying the considerations (both primary and other), information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight. > > (2) The primary consideration at 8.1 below (protection of the Australian community) is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations. Otherwise, primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations. > > (3) One or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.

4. Paragraph 8 contains the primary considerations which are:

(1) protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct; > > (2) whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence; > > (3) the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia; > > (4) the best interests of minor children in Australia; > > (5) expectations of the Australian community.

5. Paragraph 9(1) contains the other considerations. That paragraph provides that the other considerations must also be taken into account, where relevant, in accordance with their provisions. The other considerations include (but are not limited to):

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

1. The Tribunal hearing was held on 14 and 15 January 2026. The Applicant gave evidence and was cross-examined. Prior to giving his evidence, the Tribunal informed the Applicant about his privilege against self-incrimination. He indicated that he understood this privilege.
2. Mr Farrell for the Respondent raised a preliminary issue with the Tribunal at this juncture. The issue concerned the applicability of the privilege against self-incrimination as it applies to proceedings under the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) ('ART Act') in light of an absence of specific penalty provisions that previously existed in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1974 (Cth) ('AAT Act'). Mr Farrell provided the Tribunal with a bundle of materials comprising the following:
   • Section 53 of the ART Act;
   • Sections 116, 117, 118, 119 and 120 of the ART Act;
   • Sections 59, 59A, 59B, 60, 61 and 62 of the AAT Act;
   • An extract of the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2024 (Cth); and
   • Migration Agents Registration Authority v Frugtniet [2018] FCAFC 5; 259 FCR 219.
3. The Tribunal heard oral submissions from both parties on this issue. Mr Farrell took the Tribunal through the materials referred to above, as copies were not before the Tribunal at that time. After hearing submissions on the matter, the Tribunal determined that the privilege applies. The Tribunal informed the Applicant that if he needed the privilege repeated to him at any point during his evidence, he could seek to do that. He was also informed that he would be able to confer with his representative at any point if he wished.
4. On 14 January 2026, the Tribunal heard oral evidence from the following witnesses:

(a) The Applicant; > > (b) Mr Ivo Porfiri; > > (c) Mr Cedric Parker; and > > (d) Ms Anna Glen.

5. On 15 January 2026, the Applicant's representative advised the Tribunal and the Respondent that the Applicant wished to be recalled to clarify an earlier response. The Tribunal adjourned consideration of this request until after the evidence of the final witness was taken. The Tribunal then proceeded to hear evidence from the Applicant's partner.
6. At the conclusion of her evidence, the Tribunal heard oral argument on whether the Applicant ought to be permitted to be recalled. The Applicant's representative confirmed that the Applicant proposed to give evidence on a discreet point in relation to the agreed facts that were before the sentencing judge. The Respondent opposed this course, stating that it would be highly inappropriate and procedurally unfair to the Minister if the Applicant was allowed to give evidence on this topic, as he had already been afforded a reasonable opportunity to give his evidence the day prior.
7. After hearing oral submissions on the matter, the Tribunal granted leave to the Applicant to be recalled for the purpose of addressing the specific and discreet point raised by the Applicant's representative. The Tribunal indicated that the Respondent would also be granted leave to cross-examine the Applicant. The Tribunal reminded the parties that the weight to be attributed to such evidence may of course be the subject of submissions at a later point.
8. The Applicant was then recalled and gave his evidence and was cross-examined. At the conclusion of his evidence, the Tribunal adjourned to allow the parties an opportunity to prepare oral closing submissions. The hearing resumed that afternoon, and each party made closing submissions. At the conclusion of submissions, the Tribunal reserved its decision.

1. The Tribunal received into evidence a combined Hearing Book comprising the following materials:

(a) Applicant's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 12 December 2025; > > (b) Applicant's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions in Reply dated 9 January 2026; > > (c) Applicant's Tender Bundle; > > (d) Long Term Stay Visa documents issued by the Republic of Nauru; > > (e) Medical materials from Westmead Children's Hospital dated 12 January 2026 concerning the Applicant's son; > > (f) Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 1 January 2026; > > (g) Respondent's Amended Remittal Bundle; > > (h) Respondent's summons materials from NSW Police and the NSW Department of Communities and Justice.

2. The medical materials from Westmead Children's Hospital were provided by the Applicant to the Tribunal and Respondent on 12 January 2026. They detailed injuries suffered by the Applicant's son who was involved in a motor vehicle accident on 9 January 2026. The Applicant confirmed that the materials were provided to explain why the Applicant's partner could no longer give her evidence in person, but rather from hospital as she was attending to her son who was still an inpatient. The Applicant's partner gave her oral evidence to the Tribunal on 15 January 2026 and gave evidence on her son's medical condition sustained as a result of the accident at that time. In those circumstances, the Tribunal considered that the evidence did not fall foul of the 'two-day rule' under the Act.[63]

1. The Applicant confirmed that he was sentenced by the Campbelltown District Court on 30 October 2023 to four years and nine months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years. He told the Tribunal that he is currently on parole, having been granted parole on 20 June 2025. The Applicant said his parole is due to expire on 20 March 2027. He knows that he is subject to certain parole conditions. He was due to reside with his partner upon his release but is currently in immigration detention. The Applicant said he has not been the subject of any adverse incidents in gaol, nor has he taken any drugs. He said there have been no adverse incidents or drug use since he has been in immigration detention.

1. In regard to the offending, the Applicant denied telling police that he was Ali Nasari. He said he didn't know what was in the packages. He recalled talking to the undercover operative and having the exchange mentioned in the sentencing remarks.[64] He otherwise didn't recall the findings that the sentencing judge made in regard to his role in the offending.[65] He recalled pleading guilty in regard to the receipt of the packages, but denied knowing anything about the telephone calls that occurred in the lead up to the controlled delivery.
2. During cross examination, certain aspects of the sentencing remarks were put to the Applicant for comment. It was put to the Applicant that the agreed facts referred to by the sentencing judge noted that the first communication with the customs broker was at the end of February 2022, and that the Applicant was the male who identified as 'Ali' in that conversation.[66] The Applicant said that the mobile number ending in 831 was not his number and did not belong to him. The Applicant said he only pretended to be 'Ali' on one occasion which was when he accepted the delivery. He stated that he was only told about the delivery three days before he was arrested. The Applicant accepted that he pleaded guilty, but that he doesn't accept what was put to him at page 195 of the Hearing Book with regards to the agreed facts relied upon by the sentencing judge. That relevant passage provides:[67]

The next part of the agreed facts, which is the second sentence in paragraph 19, states: "The customs broker also had telephone contact regarding the consignment with a male identifying himself as Ali and using the mobile number 0474 584 831." Counsel for the offender accepted that given the offender's subsequent use and possession of a mobile phone with that number, which I will come to shortly in the agreed facts, that there was no issue that it was the offender that was involved in this telephone contact. I also confirmed that I should proceed on the basis that the communication took place at the end of February 2022.

3. He didn't accept that he was the person who had contact with the customs broker and did not identify himself as 'Ali' and did not have that communication at the end of February 2022. The Applicant denied that he was seeking to minimise his behaviour.
4. He agreed he did pretend to be 'Ali' as at June 2022 and was asked to pick up a package. He said he didn't know what was in the package. It was then put to the Applicant that he provided his parole officer with a description as to what he believed was in the package, that he told the officer it contained "the vape of oil."[68] He agreed that was what he said, and that he didn't know the package contained drugs. The Applicant said he was paid $2,000 for collecting the package, and that he knew 'Ali' as a previous client whilst the Applicant was an Uber driver. He agreed it was reckless of him to engage in such behaviour, and that's why he pleaded guilty. He denied knowing that there were drugs in the package. He said if he knew the package contained drugs, he wouldn't have collected it. The Applicant did accept that the package contained 10 kgs of methamphetamine, and if the package wasn't intercepted, he agreed he would have been responsible for that amount of drugs entering the community.
5. He said he engaged in the offending for a financial benefit, and to pay for prescription drugs and heroin. The Applicant said he had an addiction to heroin and painkillers at the time of the offending.

1. In regard to his other criminal matter, he agreed that he hit his wife with his hand, but that this encounter did not leave a bruise. He said his hand touched her unintentionally. He denied that his wife was fearful of his behaviour. The Applicant said that she was upset by his behaviour but she wasn't fearful. During re-examination he agreed that his wife was upset and angry at him. He understood why the police would have said that she was fearful for her safety, because he shouted at her and hit her. The Applicant understood why his wife was upset and he understand why she called police at the time.

1. The Applicant said he has attended four counselling sessions with STARTTS.[69] He recalled meeting his counsellor Ms Pearl Fernandes. He said he has benefited from counselling, and he has learned to not follow past behaviours, and will make positive choices in the future.

1. He said he attended Bankstown Hospital on 12 November 2025 for an infection in his knee. He reported being in hospital for five days and required surgery. He said he needed to be transported to hospital in an ambulance. He also needed to reattend hospital on 8 December 2025 due to a further infection. The Applicant has been told that further surgery will be required at some point. He said he previously had an operation on his back in 2020.
2. The Applicant agreed that he didn't tell psychologist (Ms Pearl Fernandes) that he had previously used drugs. The Applicant said he didn't disclose this because he wasn't asked about his history of drug use. The Applicant stated that he did tell Mr Sam Albassit (also a psychologist) about his drug history, although Mr Albassit didn't refer to the Applicant's heroin use in his report. He denied trying to hide or minimise his drug use to each of these psychologists. The Applicant maintained that neither asked him about his history of drug use, and if they had of asked him, he would have disclosed it. During re-examination he said he didn't disclose his drug use, because he is not a drug user now. He also stated that the interviews at the time were conducted without an interpreter being present.

1. The Applicant said he has a son who is currently four years' old. His son has severe autism and doesn't speak or eat properly. His son visits him twice a week in detention. The Applicant is currently in a de facto relationship with his partner. They have a positive relationship and have discussed having another child in the future. He said his partner has suffered significantly since he has been incarcerated, as she has to deal with their child on her own and is having difficulties making ends meet. The Applicant confirmed that he purchased a house for the couple to live in before he went to gaol. He said his wife is currently paying the mortgage on that home which places a huge financial burden on her as she is also the full-time carer for their son. She is currently letting out two rooms to help pay for the mortgage.

1. The Applicant said he did not sign the Nauru visa which was dated 4 November 2025.[70] He said no one from the Department has contacted him about this visa. He confirmed that it appeared from the paperwork that the visa was granted on 22 November 2025 but has not been spoken to by anyone from the Department in regard to the visa. He said he doesn't know anything about Nauru and doesn't know whether he can bring his wife and child there.

1. The Applicant said he wanted to clarify his earlier evidence regarding the passage at page 195 of the Hearing Book (which is replicated above at paragraph 68 of these reasons).
2. The Applicant stated that at the time he pleaded guilty, the fact sheet wasn't available to him. He said when the fact sheet was presented to him, he informed his lawyer that he didn't agree with some of the assertions that were made. The Applicant stated that his lawyer told him to plead guilty otherwise he would lose the benefit of the 25% discount. He was also told that the presence or absence of those factors would make no difference to his case, and because he didn't want to lose the discount for pleading guilty, he didn't argue.
3. During cross-examination, the Applicant denied that he reviewed his evidence overnight or discussed it with anyone. The Applicant was then taken to the sentencing judge's remarks which referenced an email address.[71] The Applicant denied using that email address and maintained that the judge didn't accept he used that email. It was put to the Applicant that he in fact did all of the things referred to in the agreed facts. The Applicant denied that he wanted to give evidence to the Tribunal for a second time to 'patch up his evidence' of the day before. The Applicant said he was very remorseful about his offending, and he understood the offending was wrong. He said he also wrote an apology letter to the judge.
4. It was then put to the Applicant that this is the first time he has ever disputed the agreed facts before the Tribunal. The Applicant denied this and said he did disagree with the facts, but that his lawyer told him to plead guilty. It was put to the Applicant that the evidence he is now giving is untruthful. The Applicant maintained his evidence was truthful, and he wanted to raise this issue because the Respondent asked him about the agreed facts the day before.

1. Mr Porfiri was part of a team delivering a program to inmates in prison, which encouraged inmates to make better life choices through a consideration of the Christian faith.[72] He first met the Applicant in prison in March 2025. Mr Porfiri said he observed a real transformation in the Applicant, such that it motivated him to write a reference on his behalf which is something he hasn't done before. Mr Porfiri said that in his view, the Applicant's risk of re-offending is 'less than minimal.'
2. During cross-examination, Mr Porfiri agreed that he has no formal qualifications in psychology or psychiatry. He agreed that he offered his views as a member of a Christian community organisation, and as a father who has lived a full life and raised three children.

1. Mr Parker came to know the Applicant as part of a Christian course he was delivering in prison.[73] Mr Parker was the 'Table Leader' at the Applicant's table during the delivery of the four-day program.[74]
2. Mr Parker said that at the commencement of the program, the Applicant was initially resentful of his situation, but as the course progressed, Mr Parker observed the Applicant's transformation. Mr Parker said the Applicant accepted that he was responsible for his actions which provided him with a renewed determination to turn his life around. Mr Parker has had regular contact with the Applicant since he has been in immigration detention and maintains that the Applicant is a 'changed man' who would be an asset to the country. Mr Parker agreed during cross-examination that he has no qualifications in psychology or psychiatry but did state that he was previously a counsellor.

1. Ms Glen knew the Applicant through her delivery of the 'Alpha in Prisons' program she ran whilst the Applicant was an inmate.[75] She said she offered pastoral care to the Applicant and spoke to him about his wife and son. Ms Glen agreed that the Applicant had committed very serious offending but doesn't believe he would commit another offence. She reported seeing his transformation during the course of the program. She said the Applicant understood the consequences of his actions. During cross-examination, she said the Applicant disclosed his heroin addiction to her. She agreed that she doesn't have any formal qualifications in psychology and was offering the Applicant counselling in a pastoral capacity through that specific 16-week program.

1. The Applicant's partner agreed that she wrote statements in support of the Applicant.[76] She stated that her son needs a father figure in his life. She said she has never used drugs, and she doesn't agree with people using drugs. She said the Applicant has always been in her son's life and has always been a present father and partner. She is aware that he has been on drugs in the past.
2. She said that she has some NDIS support for her son, but it hasn't helped her much. She said the NDIS doesn't cover everything. She recalled the incident where his hand slapped her face. She was experiencing post-natal depression at the time and had had problems with a previous ex-partner. She agreed she called police but said she was angry with him and was never scared of him. She remembers he was arrested but doesn't recall if the matter went to court.
3. She said she attends weekly occupational therapy sessions with her son. Her son is also undertaking feeding therapy. She agreed she was struggling financially. She told the Tribunal that her son has a broken leg as a result of the recent car accident and is due to undergo surgery. She also sustained injuries in the car accident but hasn't been able to seek medical advice because she doesn't have anyone to look after her son. She said she doesn't have anyone else to support her, and she has been struggling mentally. She confirmed that she is currently engaged in casual work only. She has one friend who assists her with childcare, but that friend only provides very minor assistance.
4. During cross-examination, she stated that when the Applicant's hand hit her in the face it caused redness and left a mark but did not leave a bruise. She agreed she picked up an object from the living room to defend herself. She said she was angry and upset. She said she had previous experience with domestic violence, and those prior events were on her mind and that is what led her to call police. She understood that the Applicant was charged, but the charges were withdrawn.

1. Section 501CA(4) sets out the basis upon which the Minister may revoke the original cancellation decision. That section provides that the Minister may revoke the decision if the person makes representations in accordance with the invitation and the Minister is satisfied that the person passes the character test (as defined by s 501), or there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked.
2. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant made representations in accordance with the invitation. The Tribunal finds that s 501CA(4)(a) is satisfied.
3. The Tribunal therefore needs to determine the remaining two issues in this review. They are:

(a) Does the Applicant pass the character test? > > (b) If the Applicant does not pass the character test, is there another reason why the cancellation decision should be revoked?

First issue: Does the Applicant pass the character test?

1. On 30 October 2023, the Applicant was sentenced to four years and nine months imprisonment by the District Court of NSW. Section 501(7)(c) provides that a person who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more has a substantial criminal record. Section 501(6)(a) provides that a person does not pass the character test if they have a substantial criminal record.
2. The Applicant concedes that he does not pass the character test.[77]
3. On the basis of his substantial criminal record, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant does not pass the character test. The Applicant therefore cannot rely on s 501CA(4)(b)(i) as a basis to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision.

Second issue: Is there another reason why the cancellation decision should be revoked?

1. The remaining issue to be determined is whether there is 'another reason' why the cancellation decision should be revoked under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act.
2. In order to determine this issue, the Tribunal is required to undertake an assessment of the representations put forward by the Applicant.[78] The Tribunal is required to read, identify, understand and evaluate the representations and must bring its mind to bear upon the facts stated in them or the arguments and opinions put forward and appreciate who is making them.[79] The weight to be afforded to the representations is a matter for the decision-maker.[80]
3. The Tribunal will apply the terms of Direction 110 in determining whether there is another reason why the cancellation decision should be revoked.

Primary consideration one: Protection of the Australian community

(1) When considering protection of the Australian community, decision-makers should keep in mind that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government. To that end, the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. In this respect, decision-makers should have particular regard to the principle that entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, will respect important institutions, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.

(2) Decision-makers should also give consideration to:

a) the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's conduct to date; and

b) the risk to the Australian community, should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.

1. The Tribunal has had regard to the matters set out at paragraph 8.1(1). The Tribunal has kept in mind that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government. The Tribunal has had particular regard to the principle that entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, will respect important institutions, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
2. The Tribunal has considered the matters identified at paragraph 8.1(2) of Direction 110 below.

1. Paragraph 8.1.1(1) of Direction 110 sets out the factors that decision-makers must have regard to when considering the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's criminal offending or other conduct to date.
2. Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a) provides a non-exhaustive list of conduct that may be considered very serious by the Australian Government and the Australian community. It includes violent and/or sexual crimes, crimes of a violent and/or sexual nature against women and children, and acts of family violence.
3. Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(b) provides a non-exhaustive list of crimes or conduct that are considered serious by the Australian Government and the Australian community. It includes crimes committed against vulnerable members of the community, government representatives or officials, and crimes committed whilst the non-citizen was in immigration detention.
4. The Tribunal has had regard to the Applicant's evidence and submissions that he disputes being the person who had contact with the customs broker during the initial phase of the offending in late February. The Applicant contends that he only agreed to the facts as stated by the prosecution in order to obtain the discount for pleading guilty. He essentially argued that he received legal advice that certain particulars in regard to the timing and extent of his involvement wouldn't matter because he had pleaded guilty to the primary offending.
5. The Tribunal has considered the Applicant's account but prefers the version of agreed facts as summarised by Her Honour in her 48 pages of sentencing remarks. Her Honour carefully considered the agreed facts and noted the issues that were in dispute between the parties. Her Honour noted the facts that were agreed to by the Applicant's own counsel at the plea hearing. Her Honour discounted the facts she found that weren't established beyond a reasonable doubt. Those facts relate to the sending of the various emails. Importantly Her Honour stated that:

Counsel for the offender accepted that given the offender's subsequent use and possession of a mobile phone with that number, which I will come to shortly in the agreed facts, that there was no issue that it was the offender that was involved in this telephone contact. I also confirmed that I should proceed on the basis that the communication took place at the end of February 2022.

6. These concessions regarding contact at the end of February 2022 were made by the Applicant's own counsel. It is clear that upon reading the sentencing remarks, the Applicant's counsel took issue with a number of facts and raised those with the sentencing judge. Her Honour then made findings of fact on each of them.
7. It is well established that the Tribunal cannot go beyond the essential findings of fact of the sentencing judge.[81] The Tribunal accepts that what was stated at the top of page 195 of the sentencing remarks reflect the facts as the Applicant's counsel accepted, and upon which Her Honour proceeded. The Tribunal finds those essential findings of fact establish that the Applicant made contact with the customs broker in late February 2022. The Tribunal does not accept the Applicant's evidence to the Tribunal that he only became involved in the offending mere days before the consignment was due to be delivered.
8. The Applicant's representative conceded during closing submissions that the offending was very serious. That is an appropriate concession to make. The offence of attempting to possess a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug is punishable by life imprisonment. It is one of the most serious offences on the criminal calendar. Its seriousness is reflected in its maximum penalty. In this case the Tribunal finds that the Applicant's conduct is very serious for the following reasons:

(a) The quantity of drugs involved: The amount of drugs involved in this offending was 10.21 kgs of pure methamphetamine. This was a significant amount of drugs. As the sentencing judge noted this amount is well in excess of the commercial quantity threshold which was .75 kgs.[82] Her Honour noted that the quantity of drug involved is not a controlling determinative or principal factor when it comes to the seriousness of the offence, but it is a relevant consideration.[83] In this case, Her Honour accepted that the weight of the drug involved 'has less significance' because the evidence did not establish that he was aware of the size and weight of the boxes prior to delivery, and was only reckless in terms of them containing a border controlled drug.[84] > > (b) The Applicant's role: The sentencing judge held that agreed facts 'make it clear that the offender was reckless as to the fact that the consignment contained a border controlled drug.'[85] It was held that in this context 'recklessness involves the offender having accepted that he was aware that there was a substantial risk that the package contained a border controlled drug of some type.'[86] Her Honour considered the Applicant's degree of recklessness involved was 'quite high.'[87] > > (c) Length of involvement: Her Honour found that the Applicant was involved in the offending from at least late February 2022 when he was involved in telephone contact with the customs broker regarding the consignment.[88] The Tribunal has already noted above that it accepts the findings of fact of the sentencing judge, despite the Applicant's evidence to the Tribunal that he now disputes his involvement at this early stage. Her Honour accepted that the Applicant was involved in the offending in late February 2022 as well as June 2022, when he took delivery of the consignment.[89] Her Honour accepted that there was a gap in between where there is no evidence that anything further was done by him, but noted that having made the decision to participate, he had a number of months to reflect upon that decision. Her Honour held: > > It was not a situation where he only became involved a short time prior to the delivery taking place on the spur of the moment with little time for reflection.

9. The Tribunal has had regard to the other matters at paragraph 8.1.1(1) as follows.

(a) The sentence imposed (paragraph 8.1.1(1)(c)): The Tribunal has had regard to the sentence imposed in this case. The Tribunal has already noted that the maximum penalty for this offence is life imprisonment. The sentencing judge considered that in terms of objective seriousness, the current offence is a 'significant example' of an offence of this type.[90] Her Honour allowed a 25% discount for the Applicant's plea of guilty.[91] It was also noted that the Applicant had no prior convictions, and was 30 years of age when he committed the offence.[92] Her Honour took into account the Applicant's background and personal circumstances. Her Honour found that there was 'some degree of contrition' that was demonstrated in regard to his remorse, and that he has 'good prospects for rehabilitation'.[93] Her Honour highlighted the need for general deterrence, but found that 'specific deterrence has a lesser role.'[94] Overall the head sentence of four years nine months is reflective of the overall gravity of the Applicant's offending. The Tribunal has taken this sentence into account when assessing the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct. > > (b) Impact of the offending (paragraph 8.1.1(1)(d)): The Tribunal has had regard to the sentencing judge's remarks regarding the 'potential deleterious harm that may have been inflicted upon the community if not for the intervention of police' in intercepting 10.21 kgs of pure methamphetamine.[95] The Tribunal considers that the Applicant's offending had the potential to cause very serious harm to the Australian community had the drugs not been intercepted. This potential impact is given some weight in the Tribunal's overall consideration of the nature and seriousness of the offending. > > (c) Frequency of the non-citizen's offending and any increasing trend in seriousness (paragraph 8.1.1(1)(e)): The Tribunal notes that the Applicant does not have any prior convictions, therefore this factor is not relevant. > > (d) False or misleading information to the Department (paragraph 8.1.1(1)(g)): There is no evidence that this factor is relevant. > > (e) Re-offending since being formally warned or offence committed in another country (paragraph 8.1.1(1((h) and (i): There is no evidence that these factors are relevant to the Tribunal's consideration.

10. Having regard to the factors identified above, including the amount of drugs involved, and the objective seriousness of the offending, the Tribunal concludes that the Applicant's conduct can properly be regarded as very serious.

The risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct

1. Paragraph 8.1.2(1) provides that in considering the need to protect the Australian community (including individuals, groups or institutions) from harm, decision-makers should have regard to the Government's view that the Australian community's tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. That paragraph further provides that some conduct and the harm that would be caused, if it were to be repeated, is so serious that any risk it may be repeated may be unacceptable.
2. In making an assessment of the risk that may be posed by the non-citizen to the Australian community, decision-makers should have regard to, cumulatively, the following factors:

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).

3. The Tribunal has had regard to the Government's view that the Australian community's tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. The Tribunal has had regard to, cumulatively, the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the Applicant reoffend, and the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct. These factors are dealt with below.

Nature of the harm should the Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct

1. The Tribunal considers that the nature of the harm should the Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct to be very serious. If the Applicant were to engage in further criminal or other serious drug-related offending it could potentially have very serious consequences for individuals, their families, the community in general. The Tribunal considers the nature of the harm to be so serious that any risk that it may be repeated is unacceptable. The Tribunal has had particular regard to the sentencing judge's comments when describing the nature of drug offending:[96]

There is a need to recognise the inherent feature of the significant harm to the community that would have arisen in this case if not for the intervention by police. > > The inevitable devastation that would have been caused by the relevant large quantity of drugs being in the community did not eventuate only because of detection by police, not through any action on behalf of the offender. It is not just about the harm that could have been caused to those who purchase and ingest such drugs but the harm to the community more generally. The illicit trade in drugs is one of the principal sources for crime in the community. It is not just the sale of drugs; it is the crimes that are committed by those who seek to obtain funds for drugs and the destruction to family life and personal life that illicit drugs generally can cause.

2. The Tribunal has had regard to Her Honour's comments and notes the harm that could be caused not just to those who use such drugs but the community in general. The nature of the harm of future drug offending is very serious.

Likelihood of the Applicant engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct

1. The Tribunal must also assess the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account information and evidence on the risk of re-offending and evidence of rehabilitation achieved at the time of the decision. In making such an assessment, the Tribunal has had regard to the following materials.

1. Mr Sam Albassit, psychologist, prepared a report for the sentencing court which was dated 14 August 2023.[97] Mr Albassit diagnosed the Applicant as suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder ('PTSD') and Generalised Anxiety Disorder.[98] Mr Albassit noted that the Applicant has been exhibiting symptomatology of PTSD and Generalised Anxiety Disorder for approximately 12 years.[99] The report acknowledged the significant trauma the Applicant experienced whilst living in Iran, and his ongoing symptoms related to these traumas.[100] Mr Albassit stated that the Applicant reported experiencing a 'significant low in his life' in the months leading up to his arrest.[101] The Applicant reported that he felt overwhelmed with his sense of responsibility to provide for and care for his young family. He was also not working at the time due to a workplace injury.[102]
2. Mr Albassit considered that there was a correlation between the Applicant's offending behaviour and his ongoing and chronic psychological conditions.[103] The Applicant acknowledged the irresponsibility of participating in the offending, given the significant repercussions it has had for himself, his family and the wider community.[104] He understands that his behaviours were wrong and expressed regret and remorse.[105] Mr Albassit found that the Applicant's high level of insight in relation to the consequences of his offending lends itself to a conclusion that his prospects for rehabilitation are positive.[106] Mr Albassit recommended a comprehensive treatment plan which included ongoing counselling and treatment and engagement with a psychiatrist, GP and clinical nurse consultant.[107]
3. Mrs Pearl Fernandes, a psychologist with STARTTS, prepared a report dated 30 September 2025.[108] Mrs Fernandes conducted two interviews with the Applicant on 9 and 22 September 2025. During the second interview, the Applicant was assisted by an interpreter.[109] The Applicant informed Mrs Fernandes about his family and employment background.[110] He also described his trauma experiences in Iran and detailed his arrival in Australia.[111] Mrs Fernandes reports that the Applicant is experiencing symptoms that are characteristic of depression, PTSD and anxiety.[112] It was noted that this was also consistent with the Applicant's responses on the screening instruments Mrs Fernandes administered on the Applicant, namely the Harvard Trauma Questionnaire (HTQ-16) and the Hopkins Symptoms Checklist (HSCL-25).[113] The Applicant's recommended treatment regime included specialised trauma counselling.[114]

1. Mr James Malith, who is a social worker with STARTTS, wrote a letter in support of the Applicant dated 6 November 2025.[115] The letter stated that the Applicant has been attending weekly counselling sessions for the last three months. Mr Malith also reported that the Applicant is suffering from PTSD which affects his memory and recall of past events.[116] Mr Malith wrote that the Applicant's continued detention is affecting the Applicant's mental state, and the Applicant would 'feel better' if released into the community.[117] Mr Malith posited that the Applicant is 'also suffering from some physical medical problems apart from his mental health distress and his conditions may not improve unless he is to be released into community and stay close to his family.'[118]
2. Ms Anna Glen, a Leader and Program Facilitator from Alpha in Prisons Australia, wrote a 'Character and Rehabilitation Report' in support of the Applicant dated 6 January 2026.[119] Ms Glen also gave oral evidence to the Tribunal and this has been summarised above. In her letter, she wrote that the Applicant voluntarily enrolled in a 16-week Alpha program, which requires participants to engage in reflective discussion, personal development, and group learning.[120] She also engaged in one-on-one counselling with the Applicant, and stated that he was remorseful for his offending conduct and took full responsibility for the choices that led to his incarceration.[121] She believes that the Applicant deserves a second chance and should have his visa restored. She stated that in her professional opinion, the Applicant is a low risk to the community given his consistent accountability and remorse, his willingness to engage in rehabilitation, his strong family ties, his respectful behaviour within the correctional environment and his openness to support and guidance.[122]
3. The Tribunal has also had regard to the letters in support of the Applicant from Mr Parker, Mr Porfiri, and the chaplaincy services at Clarence and Bathurst Correctional Centres.[123] The Tribunal has summarised the oral evidence of Mr Parker and Mr Porfiri above. Mr Parker wrote in his letter dated 1 December 2025 that he spent four intensive days with the Applicant and witnessed the Applicant's transformation in his attitude.[124] Mr Porfiri wrote in his letter dated 30 December 2025 that he first met the Applicant in March 2025 whilst he was delivering a four-and-a-half-day program to inmates.[125] Mr Porfiri wrote that the Applicant accepted full responsibility for his actions without excuse.[126] Mr Porfiri described the Applicant as deeply remorseful.[127] Mr Ainsworth, a Chaplain from Clarence Correctional Centre, wrote in his letter dated 17 August 2023, that the Applicant has regularly attended the multi-faith chapel service over the last few months, and noted the Applicant has been a positive contributor and has an encouraging attitude to those around him.[128] Mr Achmar, a Chaplain from Bathurst Correctional Centre, wrote three letters in support of the Applicant dated 19 December 2022, 2 February 2023 and 26 July 2023.[129] It was reported that the Applicant consistently attends weekly chapel services and is a positive role model for other inmates.[130] Mr Achmar wrote that the Applicant has shown great sorrow and remorse for his past actions which led him to his current state.[131]

1. A Sentencing Assessment Report was prepared by Corrective Services NSW on 16 August 2023, prior to the Applicant's court appearance at the Campbelltown District Court.[132] Under the 'Attitudes' section of the report, the Applicant was reported to justify his offending by claiming that he had been under the influence of prescribed and illicit substances.[133] He denied any prior knowledge of the contents of the package and appeared to place blame on a third party.[134] He acknowledged a two year history of polysubstance abuse including oxycontin, tramadol and heroin.[135] It was reported that he demonstrated limited insight into his offending and did not appear to accept responsibility for his actions.[136] He reportedly expressed an understanding that illicit substances "ruin" lives, but held no accountability for his actions stated "not responsible - not my drugs."[137] The author assessed the Applicant as a medium/low risk on the Level of Service Inventory - Revised (LSI-R).[138]
2. A Risk Assessment Tool was conducted on the Applicant by Mr Urhik, a Correctional Supervisor with MTC Australia on 7 October 2024.[139] The report noted that the Applicant was assessed as a medium risk on the basis he is seeking revocation of his visa cancellation.[140] However the report also noted that the Applicant's institutional behaviour has been satisfactory, that he is compliant, and has nil adverse case notes.[141]
3. A Pre-release Report was prepared by Corrective Services NSW on 20 February 2025, ahead of the Applicant's release on parole.[142] The report stated that the Applicant was suitable for release on parole, and that he has the pro-social support of his family which would be of benefit to his successful reintegration back into the community.[143] The report noted that the Applicant has expressed regret for his offending and has accepted full responsibility.[144] He acknowledged the severity of his offence and understood the negative impact of addiction issues.[145] He acknowledged his previous drug use, and expressed a willingness to engage in relapse prevention intervention to maintain his abstinence from all non-prescribed and illicit substances.[146] The report noted that he has completed various offence-related programs and educational courses.[147] He was assessed at a medium-low risk of reoffending according to the LSI-R assessment tool.[148]

Rehabilitative courses and education programs

1. The Applicant has provided evidence that he has completed a large number of rehabilitative courses and education programs. He has completed programs such as:
   • Positive Lifestyles Program dated 9 September 2023;[149]
   • Cannabis Awareness Program dated 8 December 2023;[150]
   • Participation in Narcotic Anonymous in March and July 2024;[151] and
   • Participation in the Smart Recovery program in August and September 2024.[152]
2. The Applicant has also completed courses in Anger Management, Domestic Abuse, Victim Awareness and Alcohol Awareness.[153] He has participated in various vocational programs including Access to Vocational Pathways, a barbering course, and programs in work health and safety procedures.[154]

1. The Applicant submits that significant weight should be given to his rehabilitative efforts whilst in custody and in detention.[155] He states in his Statutory Declaration dated 20 February 2025, that he knows he made a terrible mistake and deeply regrets his offending.[156] In his personal statement dated 24 July 2024, he states that there is no chance or risk that he will reoffend because he wants to be there for his son and partner.[157] He acknowledged that his partner will not give him another chance, and he will not reoffend again.[158] He maintains that he had no knowledge of the drugs in the package, but acknowledges the bad choices he made 'in a moment of vulnerability' and stated that this was his first and last offence.[159] The Applicant also wrote in another letter that he regrets his involvement and understands the seriousness of his actions and the serious detrimental consequences his offending had on himself and people around him.[160]
2. It is submitted that the Applicant has continued to engage in pro-social behaviour and has recorded no adverse incidents in custody and detention.[161] It is submitted that the Applicant has demonstrated that he is reformed and has demonstrated genuine insight into the consequences of his past actions.[162]
3. The Respondent accepts that the Applicant has engaged in rehabilitation and demonstrated some remorse and insight.[163] It is also accepted that he has a number of protective factors including family support and the offer of employment.[164] The Respondent however remains concerned regarding the Applicant's ability to cope with life stressors and to abstain from drug use outside of the controlled environment and as a result he remains at an ongoing risk of reoffending.[165] It is submitted that this primary consideration ought to weigh strongly against revocation in circumstances where the Applicant has been convicted of serious drug offending, there is an ongoing risk of reoffending, and the significant harm to the Australian community if he were to do so.[166]
4. In light of the Applicant's evidence he gave to the Tribunal when he sought to be recalled, the Respondent made submissions that the Applicant's credibility is in issue, and that he has not demonstrated remorse. The Respondent noted that the Applicant does not agree that he assumed the identity of 'Ali', and that he sought to minimise his behaviour and actions. The Respondent submitted that prior to the Applicant raising the issue in his oral evidence, there was previously no indication that the Applicant disputed the facts upon which he was sentenced. The Respondent submitted that he is not genuinely remorseful, did not accept the full extent of his offending conduct, and only pleaded guilty to obtain the discount. It was further submitted that the Applicant was not truthful about his alcohol and drug history to psychologists Mr Albassit and Mrs Fernandes given the complete lack of reference to this history in their respective reports. It is submitted that given the gravity of his offending, any risk the offending may be repeated is unacceptable.
5. The Tribunal has had regard to the information and evidence on the risk of the Applicant re-offending, and the evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the Tribunal's decision. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant has engaged in a significant amount of rehabilitative and educational courses and programs to further his rehabilitation. The Tribunal also accepts that the Applicant was fully engaged with the counselling and pastoral services that were offered to him during his period of incarceration. The Tribunal has noted that each of the reports spoke of the Applicant's institutional compliance and good behaviour whilst in custody. His efforts in undergoing weekly counselling with STARTTS is also acknowledged. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant has previously been assessed at a medium/low risk of re-offending on the LSI-R assessment tool, and that his release on parole was recommended.
6. The Tribunal notes the absence of his reported drug history in the reports of Mr Albassit and Mrs Fernandes. The sentencing judge described the absence of prior drug offending in the report of Mr Albassit as a 'significant omission.'[167] It was also noted that there was 'no consideration by Mr Albassit of how the offender's heroin use would also have had the ability to affect the offender's decision-making and impair his judgement in relation to the decision to carry out the offence.'[168] Her Honour was prepared to find that there was a causal connection between the Applicant's PTSD and anxiety disorder and his offending, but that any reduction in his moral culpability needs to be moderated to take into account his prior drug use.[169] The Applicant maintained that he didn't disclose his prior drug use to each of these psychologists because they didn't question him about it. He said that those assessments were conducted without the benefit of an interpreter and that Mr Albassit's consultation with him was very brief.
7. The Tribunal accepts the diagnoses reported in each of the reports regarding the Applicant's mental health. The Tribunal accepts that his poor mental health was a factor in his offending, and that his risk of reoffending is reduced if he continues to engage in specialised trauma counselling which he has done. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant's offending was in part influenced by his prior drug use but also accepts that the Applicant has remained drug-free whilst in prison and detention. His resolve to remain drug-free within the community has not been tested, but the Tribunal accepts that he has the strong pro-social protective factors of his partner and child to prevent his relapse.
8. The Tribunal notes that in the reports leading up to his release (especially the Pre-release report dated 20 February 2025) the Applicant expressed regret and accepted full responsibility for his behaviour.[170] This is at odds with his recent oral evidence to the Tribunal that he was not the person named as 'Ali' and that he only agreed to take delivery of the package in the days leading up to his arrest. This is also at odds with what was submitted on his behalf by his own counsel at the plea hearing, that the Applicant had accepted that he was associated with the name 'Ali', that he had use of the mobile number associated with 'Ali', and that he was involved in the telephone contact with the customs broker at the end of February 2022.[171]
9. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant's attempt to back-track on the findings of the sentencing judge impacts his level of remorse. He may have pleaded guilty for a range of reasons, but the attempts during his evidence to dispute the findings of the sentencing judge impact his credit and declarations of remorse. If the Applicant disputed these key findings of facts (of which his counsel accepted) at the time he was applying for parole for example, it is possible that the author of those reports may have reached different conclusions regarding the Applicant's level of remorse and finding that he accepted 'full responsibility' for his offending.
10. The Tribunal has taken these matters into account and finds that, consistent with the previous reports where the LSI-R tool was administered, that the Applicant has a medium/low risk of reoffending. The Tribunal does not accept that the Applicant is fully remorseful for his conduct and hasn't fully accepted the findings of facts made by the sentencing judge. The Tribunal does accept he has pro-social protective factors in the community that would ameliorate any risk of re-offending. However given the devastating consequences for the Australian community if he were to reoffend, the Tribunal finds that any risk he may reoffend is unacceptable.

1. The Tribunal has had regard to the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's offending and the risk to the Australian community if he did re-offend. The Tribunal has concluded that the Applicant's conduct was very serious given it involved the attempted possession of in excess of 10 kgs of methamphetamine. Had that consignment not been intercepted and found its way into the community, it would have caused significant physical, psychological, social and economic harm to its users, their families and the community in general.
2. In terms of risk, the Tribunal has found that the Applicant has engaged in extensive rehabilitation and has remained incident and drug-free during his period in custody and detention. It has been noted that the Applicant has engaged in regular, weekly counselling sessions aimed at addressing his part traumas. It is also accepted that the Applicant is significantly motivated to remain drug and offence free because of the pro-social influence of his partner and child. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant's statement that he is committed to being a better father to his child, and that his partner will not give him another chance.[172]
3. The Tribunal is concerned that the Applicant is not fully remorseful for his offending, given his evidence that he does not accept what is stated by the sentencing judge, despite his counsel at the time accepting those facts on his behalf.[173] The Tribunal has noted that this is at odds with what was reported to the Corrections officer during the preparation of his parole pre-release report.[174]
4. The Tribunal considers that the Applicant's risk of re-offending is medium/low (in line with previous reports). However, the Tribunal considers that the harm that would be caused if the Applicant's conduct were repeated is unacceptable. The Tribunal considers that this primary consideration weighs very heavily against revocation of the mandatory cancellation decision.

Primary consideration two: Family violence committed by the non-citizen

1. Paragraph 8.2(1) of Direction 110 states that the Government has serious concerns about conferring on non-citizens who engage in family violence the privilege of entering or remaining in Australia. The Direction states that the Government's concerns in this regard are proportionate to the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the non-citizen.
2. Paragraph 8.2(2) provides that this consideration is relevant in circumstances where:

a) a non-citizen has been convicted of an offence, found guilty of an offence, or had charges proven howsoever described, that involve family violence; and/or > > b) there is information or evidence from independent and authoritative sources indicating that the non-citizen is, or has been, involved in the perpetration of family violence, and the non-citizen being considered under section 501 or section 501CA has been afforded procedural fairness.

3. Paragraph 8.3(3) contains the factors that must be considered where relevant to an assessment of seriousness of the family violence.
4. 'Family violence' is defined in paragraph 4(1) of Direction 110 to mean 'violent, threatening or other behaviour that coerces or controls a member of the person's family (the family member) or causes the family member to be fearful.' The definition then includes examples of behaviour that may constitute family violence.
5. The Applicant has been investigated by NSW police for an incident of family violence that was alleged to have occurred in the family home on 2 January 2022.[175] A summary of the incident as recorded in the NSW police case note system on 3 January 2022 follows.
6. At about 11pm on that day, the Applicant told his partner that he was going to take their dogs for a walk. The Applicant's partner observed the Applicant in the laundry area of the house, putting on his shoes and fixing the waistline of his pants. The Applicant's partner believed the Applicant was hiding something in his waistline. She asked the Applicant what he was doing, and he denied that he was hiding anything. She then went to touch his pants to see what he was hiding. She attempted to touch the Applicant about five times. The Applicant pushed her hands away and at one point hit the victim in the face 'causing a bruise to the left side of her face located above and below her eye.'[176] The case note then reported that '[t]his caused the victim to fear for her safety.'[177] The Applicant then grabbed his partner's thighs and apologised for hitting her. His partner retreated into the living room and grabbed the top of a Shisha pipe to defend herself.[178] She then called '000' and met police at the rear of the property. She was reported to be 'hysterical and upset' when explaining to police what had happened.[179]
7. The Applicant's partner gave evidence to the Tribunal in relation to this incident. She confirmed that part of what was stated in the case notes was accurate, that the Applicant was preparing to go for a walk, he was fixing the waistline of his pants, she was concerned he was concealing drugs, and that his hand hit her on the face. She vehemently denied that she received a bruise, and that the Applicant's actions in hitting her was intentional. She agreed she picked up the Shisha pipe but said that she did so because she was angry and upset.
8. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant has not been charged or convicted for this incident.[180] Police did apply for an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order ('ADVO') in relation to the incident.[181] The Respondent urges the Tribunal to rely on the case note as an independent and authoritative record of the conduct that occurred.[182]
9. The Applicant agreed that an argument took place, and that his partner was right to contact the police.[183] He said that his partner was not afraid of him, but rather was very upset with him, as she will not tolerate bad behaviour of any kind.[184] He fully accepts his actions and is deeply ashamed and embarrassed. He said he loves his partner and son very much as they are the most important people in his life.[185]
10. The Tribunal has had regard to the terms of paragraph 8.2 of Direction 110. The Tribunal notes that this primary consideration is relevant in circumstances where 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.[186] Family violence includes behaviour that causes a family member to be fearful.[187]
11. The Tribunal has noted the evidence of the Applicant's partner and the absence of any criminal charges in regard to this incident. The matter has never been put before a court, and the allegations have not been tested. The Applicant's partner strongly denied that she was fearful of the Applicant but agreed she was angry and upset with him because she thought he was concealing drugs from her. The Tribunal notes that an ADVO was put in place by police when the matter was reported to them.

1. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the incident on 2 January 2022 amounted to family violence. The Tribunal has therefore afforded neutral weight to this primary consideration.

Primary consideration three: The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia

1. Paragraph 8.3(1) of Direction 110 provides that decision-makers must consider any impact of the decision on the non-citizen's immediate family members in Australia, where those family members are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, or people who have the right to remain in Australia indefinitely.
2. Paragraph 8.3(2) also provides that where consideration is being given to cancel a visa or whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the visa, the decision-maker must also consider the strength, nature and duration of any other ties that the non-citizen has to the Australian community. In doing so, decision-makers must have regard to:

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

3. The Applicant's immediate family members in Australia are his partner and minor child. His partner is currently in Australia on a refugee bridging visa.[188] His minor child was born in Australia and is a permanent resident. He is currently four years old. His partner is not an Australian citizen, permanent resident or a person who has the right to remain in Australia indefinitely at this stage due to her unfinalized protection visa application.[189] However, the Tribunal has considered the impact of a non-revocation decision on her, given her relationship with the Applicant and because she is the mother of his child (who is an Australian permanent resident).
4. The Applicant's partner has been receiving mental health treatment in Australia since 2022.[190] She has suffered from postpartum depression, major depressive disorder, generalised anxiety disorder (on the severe range) and PTSD.[191] Her psychologist prepared a report dated 23 July 2024 in which it was reported the Applicant's partner has been suffering from poor sleep, possibly sleep apnoea.[192] She has been experiencing significant emotional and financial distress, as a result of the Applicant's incarceration and continued detention.[193] This has been exacerbated by her son's diagnosis of autism, and the need for his ongoing specialised care.[194] She is unable to go to work, because she has no one to look after her child. The Applicant's partner has tried to send her son to childcare but is unable to pay for it. She currently receives assistance from the Salvation Army and Red Cross to help buy food and pay her bills.[195] Her GP confirmed in a letter dated 20 April 2023 that she is currently taking anti-depressant medication for her anxiety and major depression.[196] Her employer has assisted the Applicant's partner by offering her casual shifts, depending on whether she can obtain childcare, and has assisted her financially by giving her money toward her mortgage.[197] She told the Tribunal she rents out two rooms in the couple's home to try and make ends meet.
5. Unfortunately, in the days prior to the Tribunal hearing, the Applicant's partner and child were involved in a car accident which required her son to be hospitalised.[198] She gave her evidence to the Tribunal from the hospital where her son was still an inpatient and was requiring surgery. The Tribunal has had regard to her circumstances, including that she is in Australia without family support, and is the primary caregiver for her son who has autism. She wrote in her most recent statement dated 21 February 2025 that she needs the Applicant's help and support and she can't care for her son alone.[199]
6. The Tribunal considers that the Applicant's partner would be significantly negatively impacted by a non-revocation decision. The Tribunal has taken this into account and afforded this consideration significant weight in the Applicant's favour.
7. The Tribunal has also considered the impact of a non-revocation decision on the Applicant's minor child. The Applicant's minor child is a permanent resident and resides with his mother (the Applicant's partner). He has been diagnosed with autism (level 2) and requires ongoing specialised treatment.[200] He also has been diagnosed with developmental delay, a severe speech and language disorder, and has a restrictive eating pattern, in addition to multiple food allergies.[201] His paediatrician reported in a letter dated 21 February 2025, that the Applicant's minor child will require 'ongoing specialised medical care and allied health services to optimise his medical, educational and functional outcomes.'[202]
8. The Tribunal has noted the motor vehicle accident that the Applicant's son and his mother were unfortunately involved in days before the Tribunal hearing. The medical material reports that he suffered a closed femur fracture and has been an inpatient since the accident.[203] The Tribunal accepts that if the Applicant is removed from Australia, this would have a significant negative impact on the Applicant's minor child in light of his multiple diagnoses. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant's minor child and partner would be significantly negatively impacted by a non-revocation decision and has taken this impact into account.
9. The Tribunal has also taken into account the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's other ties to the Australian community.[204] The Tribunal has also considered the strength, duration and nature of any family or social links with Australian citizens, permanent residents and/or people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia.[205]
10. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant first arrived in Australia in 2012 as a 20-year-old.[206] He is currently 34 years old. He committed the offending when he was 30 years old. It is accepted that the Applicant has spent approximately 10 years contributing positively to the Australian community in that time. The Applicant has been employed as a security guard, in formwork/construction and as an Uber driver.[207] He suffered a serious workplace injury in April 2019 and was prescribed pain medication to manage his injury.[208] He developed a dependency on the medication, and then started to use heroin about a year later.[209]
11. The Applicant also has ties with his former neighbours and counts one of them as a close friend. He relied on this neighbour during COVID, and she has offered him support.[210] The Applicant also has offers of employment available to him if he were released into the community with his partner's employer in his butcher's shop, and as an installer for Berry Kitchens.[211]

1. The Tribunal has considered the matters identified under this primary consideration and considers that this primary consideration weighs significantly in favour of revoking the non-revocation decision. The Tribunal has considered that the Applicant's partner and minor child would be significantly negatively impacted by a non-revocation decision given their personal circumstances.
2. The Tribunal has also taken into account the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's other ties to the Australian community he has developed in the time he has resided in Australia. The Tribunal has accepted that the Applicant spent a significant amount of time contributing positively to the Australian community prior to his arrest. The Tribunal has attributed more weight to the time he has spent contributing positively given he had been residing in Australia for 10 years prior to his arrest.
3. Although the Tribunal has attributed significant weight in the Applicant's favour to this primary consideration, the Tribunal considers that the weight attributed to primary consideration one outweighs the weight attributable to this primary consideration. That is because of the very serious nature of the Applicant's offences and the guidance in Direction 110 which provides that primary consideration one is generally to be given greater weight than the other primary considerations.

Primary consideration four: Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision

1. Paragraph 8.4(1) of Direction 110 provides that decision-makers must make a determination about whether cancellation or refusal under s 501, or non-revocation under s 501CA, is, or is not, in the best interests of a child affected by the decision. In considering the best interest of the child, paragraph 8.4(4) identifies a number of factors that must be considered where relevant.
2. The Applicant has one minor child in Australia who would be impacted by a non-revocation decision. That child is his biological son and is currently four years old. The child resides with his mother (the Applicant's partner) in New South Wales. The Tribunal has considered the factors identified at paragraph 8.4(4) as follows.
3. Nature and duration of the relationship (paragraph 8.4(4)(a)): The Applicant is the minor child's biological father. The Applicant is in a committed, long-term relationship with the child's mother. The minor child had just turned one year old when the Applicant was arrested for his current offending. The Applicant has been in custody and detention since that time. The Applicant's partner reported visiting the Applicant in custody on occasion but explained those visits were difficult to arrange.[212] The Applicant's son has been able to visit the Applicant twice a week since the Applicant has been in immigration detention. It is clear that the Applicant's son has a loving and close relationship with the Applicant as evidenced in the family photos provided from immigration detention visits in 2025.[213] The Applicant's partner said in her statement that the Applicant has always been there for their son.[214] She said her son needs his father in his life, given his autism diagnosis.[215] The Tribunal accepts that this factor weighs strongly in the Applicant's favour.
4. Extent to which the non-citizen is likely to play a positive parental role in the future (paragraph 8.4(4)(b)): The Applicant's son is four years old, so it is accepted that the Applicant would play a positive role in his future, taking into account the length of time until he turns 18. The Applicant's partner has stated that her son needs his father to help him grow up, especially with his autism.[216] This factor is given strong weight in the Applicant's favour.
5. Impact of the non-citizen's prior conduct and any likely future conduct (paragraph 8.4(4)(c)): The Applicant's prior conduct has resulted in the physical separation of the Applicant from his son. Any likely future conduct would have the same impact. This factor has been taken into account.
6. Likely effect of any future separation (paragraph 8.4(4)(d)): The Tribunal accepts that any future separation would negatively impact the Applicant's son. In making this finding, the Tribunal has had regard to the specialist reports from the Westmead Children's Hospital which details the Applicant's son's diagnosis and recommended treatment plan. The recommended treatment plan is a comprehensive list of programs and therapies that the Applicant's son will require into the future.[217] The Applicant's partner gave evidence that she receives some NDIS funding for these therapies, but it is not enough. She told the Tribunal she needs the Applicant to provide assistance for her and her son. The Tribunal is aware that the Applicant's son speaks to the Applicant each day and visits him twice a week in detention. Any future separation would greatly impact their ability to maintain a meaningful and loving relationship. This factor is given significant weight in the Applicant's favour.
7. Whether there are other persons who already fulfill a parental role (paragraph 8.4(4)(e)): The Applicant's partner has stated that she has no family in Australia and that she only has the Applicant to help support their son.[218] The Applicant's mother is fulfilling a parental role in the child's life, but the Tribunal accepts the child needs both of his parents in his life. This factor is given significant weight in the Applicant's favour.
8. Any known views of the child (paragraph 8.4(4)(f)): The views of the Applicant's son have been communicated through his mother. It is accepted that the pair have a loving and close relationship. The Tribunal has already had regard to the series of photographs which depict a loving and close relationship between the pair.[219] The Tribunal gives this factor significant weight in the Applicant's favour.
9. Evidence of family violence, or any physical or emotional trauma (paragraph 8.4(4)(g) and (h)): There is no evidence that these factors are relevant.

1. The Tribunal has conducted an assessment of the best interests of the Applicant's biological child by taking into account the factors identified at paragraph 8.4(4) where relevant.
2. The Tribunal finds that it would be in the child's best interests for the non-revocation decision to be revoked. This consideration is given significant weight in the Applicant's favour. It is given significant weight because of the nature and duration of the relationship, and the likely positive role the Applicant would play in his future, and the impact of any future separation. The Tribunal has had regard to the medical material submitted in regard to the minor child's diagnosis of autism and his ongoing need for specialised medical attention and care. It is accepted that the child needs his father in his life to provide support to him given these difficult circumstances.
3. However, the Tribunal has decided that the weight afforded to primary consideration one outweighs the weight that has been afforded to this primary consideration. This is due to the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's offending which the Tribunal has determined is very serious and the guidance in Direction 110 which provides that primary consideration one is generally to be given greater weight than the other primary considerations.

Primary consideration five: Expectations of the Australian community

1. Paragraph 8.5 of Direction 110 provides as follows:

1) The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they may do so, the Australian community, as a norm, expects the Government to not allow such a non-citizen to enter or remain in Australia. > > (2) In addition, 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 the following kind: > > a) acts of family violence; or > > b) causing a person to enter into, or being party to (other than being a victim of), a forced marriage; > > c) commission of serious crimes against women, children or other vulnerable members of the community such as the elderly or disabled; in this context, 'serious crimes' include crimes of a violent or sexual nature, as well as other serious crimes against the elderly or other vulnerable persons in the form of fraud, extortion, financial abuse/material exploitation or neglect; > > d) commission of crimes against government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties; or > > e) involvement or reasonably suspected involvement in human trafficking or people smuggling, or in crimes that are of serious international concern including, but not limited to, war crimes, crimes against humanity and slavery; or > > f) worker exploitation. > > (3) The above expectations of the Australian community apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measureable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community. > > (4) This consideration is about the expectations of the Australian community as a whole, and in this respect, decision-makers should proceed on the basis of the Government's views as articulated above, without independently assessing the community's expectations in the particular case.

2. This primary consideration requires decision-makers to consider the expectations of the Australian community as articulated by the Australian Government, without independently assessing the community's expectations in a particular case. This 'deemed community expectation' must be understood and applied normatively.[220]
3. In this case, the Applicant has breached the community's expectations by committing very serious drug offending. He was convicted of attempting to possess a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug - an offence which is punishable by life imprisonment. The Applicant was alleged to have attempted to possess over 10 kg of methamphetamine, which is well in excess of the commercial quantity applicable to that drug (being .75 grams).
4. Although the Applicant's offending is not captured by any of the categories identified at paragraph 8.5(2) of Direction 110, the Tribunal considers that non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa is appropriate because of the very serious nature of the Applicant's offending. These expectations apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.[221]

1. The Applicant has breached the expectations of the Australian community by committing very serious drug offending. He was involved in the attempted possession of in excess of 10 kgs of methamphetamine.
2. Where a non-citizen has engaged in such serious conduct, the Australin community would expect the Australian Government to not allow such a person to enter or remain in Australia. In this case, the Tribunal considers that non-revocation is appropriate because of the nature of the Applicant's offending. His offending is objectively serious and is punishable by life imprisonment.
3. The Tribunal considers that this primary consideration weighs very heavily against revocation of the mandatory cancellation decision. It is afforded very heavy weight because of the very serious nature of the offending.

Other consideration one: Legal consequences of the decision

1. Paragraph 9.1(1) provides that decision-makers should be mindful that unlawful non-citizens are, in accordance with s 198, liable for removal from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable in the circumstances specified in that section, and in the meantime, detention under s 189, noting that s 197C(1) of the Act provides that for the purposes of s 198, it is irrelevant that Australia has non-refoulement obligations in respect of an unlawful non-citizen.
2. Paragraph 9.1.1(1) of Direction 110 provides that where a protection finding (as defined in s 197C of the Act has been made for a non-citizen in the course of considering a protection visa application, this indicates that non-refoulment obligations are engaged in respect of the non-citizen.
3. Paragraph 9.1.1(2) provides that s 197C(3) ensures that, except in the limited circumstances specified in s 197C(3)(c), s 198 does not require or authorise removal of an unlawful non-citizen to a country in respect of which a protection finding has been made for the non-citizen in the course of considering their application for a protection visa. This means that the non-citizen cannot be removed to that country in breach of non-refoulement obligations, even if an adverse visa decision under ss 501 or 501CA is made for the non-citizen and they become, or remain, an unlawful non-citizen as a result. Instead, the non-citizen must remain in immigration detention as required by s 189 unless and until they are granted another visa or they can be removed to a country other than the country by reference to which the protection finding was made. This is however subject to the constitutional limitation identified by the High Court in NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs ('NZYQ').[222] As summarised by the Respondent in its Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions:[223]

The effect of NZYQ is that, where the statutory duty to remove a non-citizen has arisen (in that case, pursuant to section 198 of the Act), detention of the non-citizen will no longer be supported by sections 189 and 196 of the Act where there is no real prospect that it will be practicable to remove the non-citizen in the reasonably foreseeable future. In those circumstances, the constitutionally permissible period of detention will have come to an end and the non-citizen must be released from immigration detention.

4. In this case, the Applicant is covered by a protection finding for the purposes of s 197C of the Act.[224] This means that s 197C(3) of the Act prevents his involuntary removal to Iran.[225]
5. The Applicant has been in immigration detention since 20 June 2025.[226] On 22 November 2025, the Republic of Nauru granted the Applicant a Long Term Stay Visa of 30 years.[227] Therefore if the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa, he would remain liable to be held in detention until he is removed to Nauru.[228] The legal consequences of a decision to affirm have been summarised by the Respondent:[229]

In the instance a non-revocation decision is made, there would be significant restrictions on the Applicant's ability to apply for another visa. In particular, the Applicant would be prevented by section 48A of the Act from making a further application for a protection visa while he is in the migration zone (unless a Minister determines under section 48B that section 48A does not apply to him). Any application made by the Applicant for a visa other than a protection visa would be subject to section 501E of the Act, which would apply to the Applicant as a result of a non-revocation decision. This means that, without the Applicant leaving the migration zone, he would not be able to apply for any other visa other than a Bridging R (Class WR) visa, as prescribed by regulation 2.12AA of the Migration Regulations 1994, for which he could only apply in response to an invitation.

6. The Respondent accepts that this other consideration therefore carries some weight in favour of revocation of the cancellation decision.[230]
7. The Applicant contended in its Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions in Reply that the Respondent's submissions failed to adequately address the 'true and current legal consequences' the Applicant is facing in the event his visa cancellation is not revoked.[231] The Applicant submitted that the grant of a Long Term Stay Visa to Nauru is not an appropriate or proportionate response to the Applicant's personal circumstances or his offending in circumstances where he was convicted of a single offence.[232]
8. It is submitted that removal to Nauru would result in serious and devastating consequences for the Applicant and his immediate family being his partner and child.[233] It is submitted that the Respondent's submissions fail to adequately engage with the real and practical consequences of removal, particularly on the Applicant's child.[234] It is argued that this is particularly so when the Applicant's child requires continuity of care, access to therapeutic and medical support, and a stable family environment.[235] It is argued that the forced removal of the Applicant from his child would cause 'foreseeable and lasting harm.'[236]
9. The Applicant further contends that he did not agree to the application for the Long Term Stay Visa made on his behalf.[237] It is submitted that there is no information as to how the Applicant may contribute to the care of his son, how he is to maintain a relationship with his family, or how he is to exercise his parental responsibilities from Nauru.[238] It is argued that this presents a severe practical and human consequence of removal.[239] It is further submitted that removal to Nauru amounts to de facto indefinite detention, as the Applicant would be deprived of any meaningful opportunity to live a normal life.[240] An inevitable consequence of removal would be that the Applicant is effectively isolated from his family and deprived of the life he has built in Australia.[241] The Applicant urges the Tribunal to give significant weight to the consequences of non-revocation.[242]
10. The Tribunal has considered the legal consequences of a non-revocation decision on the Applicant. Should the Tribunal affirm the non-revocation decision, the Applicant would continue to be detained, pending his removal to Nauru, where a Long Term Stay Visa has been issued. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant may be liable for removal to Nauru as a consequence of the non-revocation decision as soon as reasonably practicable. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant's argument that his pending removal to Nauru brings a high level of uncertainty and anxiety in terms of his accommodation, employment prospects, and whether members of his immediate family would be permitted to visit and/or reside in Nauru if necessary. He would also be subject to the other intended legal consequences as summarised by the Respondent and extracted above at paragraph 193. The Tribunal understands that the Applicant has previously applied for a Bridging visa R whilst this application remains on foot, but this was refused. As of the date of the Applicant's submissions, an application had been made for a Residence Determination under s 197AB and an outcome is still pending.[243]
11. The Tribunal accepts a decision by the Tribunal to not revoke the mandatory cancellation decision would be distressing to the Applicant and members of his immediate family.
12. Having considered these matters, the Tribunal has decided to afford this other consideration significant weight in the Applicant's favour.
13. However, the Tribunal has given greater weight to the primary considerations and afforded greater weight to primary consideration one in accordance with paragraph 7(2) of Direction 110 given the very serious nature of the offending.

Other consideration two: Extent of impediments if removed

1. Paragraph 9.2 of the Direction states that decision-makers must consider the extent of any impediments that the non-citizen may face if removed from Australia to their home country in establishing themselves and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country).
2. Decision-makers are to have regard to the non-citizen's age and health, whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers, and any social, medical and/or economic support available to them in that country.
3. The Applicant is currently 34 years old and came to Australia from Iran as a 20-year-old. His remaining family still reside in Iran, and he described having a close relationship with them.[244]
4. In his Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, the Applicant has made some claims under this other consideration. He states that he has had ongoing issues with a septic knee infection which has required surgery and requires ongoing management under the care of an orthopaedic surgeon.[245] It is likely he will require further surgery in the future. This condition has been managed in hospital and requires specialist ongoing attention including pain management.[246]
5. The Applicant also relies on his ongoing engagement with STARTTS for which he is receiving weekly counselling to address previous traumas, anxiety, depression and PTSD.[247] He also fears returning to Iran because of his queer identity which would place him at risk of harm if he were to return.[248] The Applicant described 'many bad and traumatic experiences' in Iran.[249] He fears returning to Iran because he believes he would receive the death penalty.[250]
6. The Respondent accepts that the Applicant would face significant impediments if he were returned to Iran.[251] However the Respondent also notes that the Applicant's protection finding means that s 198 of the Act does not require or authorise his removal to Iran (by virtue of s 197C(3) of the Act).[252] It is submitted that the fact that it is highly unlikely that the Applicant could ever be removed to Iran significantly affects the weight that can be given to this consideration.[253] The Respondent therefore contends that no weight should be given to this consideration.[254]
7. The Tribunal finds there is no prospect of the Applicant being removed to Iran given his protection finding. The Tribunal has noted the Applicant's ongoing physical and psychological conditions and his requirement for ongoing treatment of those conditions. No claims have been raised in regard to any substantial language or cultural barriers. However, in the circumstances where there is no prospect of his removal to Iran, this other consideration is not relevant to the Applicant's circumstances.
8. The Tribunal has decided to afford this other consideration neutral weight.

Other consideration three: Impact on Australian business interests

1. Paragraph 9.3(1) provides that decision-makers must consider any impact on Australian business interests if the non-citizen is not allowed to enter or remain in Australia.
2. No claims have been raised under this consideration, and none are apparent on the available evidence. This other consideration is given neutral weight.

1. The Tribunal notes that the other considerations identified at paragraph 9 of Direction 110 are not an exhaustive list. If any other considerations are raised by an Applicant, they must be considered.
2. The Applicant has raised an additional other consideration regarding his potential removal to Nauru which is submitted would result in 'serious and devastating consequences' not only for the Applicant but his partner and minor child.[255] It is submitted that the Applicant's removal would have a profound effect on the Applicant's minor child who requires ongoing continuity of care, therapeutic and medical support and a stable family environment.[256]
3. The Applicant also raises concerns about the practical impact of his removal to Nauru including how visits or contact with his immediate family would be facilitated.[257] The Tribunal accepts there is uncertainty with regards to the Applicant's potential removal to Nauru. The Tribunal has noted that a Long Term Stay Visa has been issued for the Applicant's removal to Nauru.[258] The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant would be experiencing some anxiety around his potential removal including what that might mean for his relationship with his partner and child. It is accepted that his removal would cause the Applicant uncertainty and hardship, especially in circumstances where his partner would become the sole carer for their child who has autism and other developmental delays and requires ongoing specialised care.
4. The Tribunal also accepts that the Applicant would be experiencing some anxiety regarding whether his ongoing medical and psychological treatment could continue to be facilitated in Nauru. It is uncertain whether the Applicant could continue to maintain his weekly counselling sessions with STARTTS by telehealth for example. The Long Term Stay Visa notes that the visa holder shall have access to health and welfare services in Nauru, but it is not certain what health and welfare services would be provided.[259]
5. The Tribunal has weighed all of these matters carefully. The Tribunal is aware of the real human consequences that removal from Australia can bring about:[260]

By way of preliminary comment, it can be said that cases under s 501 and the question of the consequences of a failure to pass the character test not infrequently raise important questions about the exercise of Executive power. Among the reasons for this importance are the human consequences removal from Australia can bring about. Public power, the source of which is in statute, must conform to the requirements of its statutory source and to the limitations imposed by the requirement of legality. Legality in this context takes its form and shape from the terms, scope and policy of the statute and fundamental values anchored in the common law: Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Stretton [2016] FCAFC 11; 237 FCR 1 at 5 [9]; Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZVFW [2018] HCA 30; 357 ALR 408 at 423 [59]. The consequences of these considerations are that where decisions might have devastating consequences visited upon people, the obligation of real consideration of the circumstances of the people affected must be approached confronting what is being done to people. This obligation and the expression of its performance is not a place for decisional checklists or formulaic expression. Mechanical formulaic expression and pre-digested shorthand expressions may hide a lack of the necessary reflection upon the whole consideration of the human consequences involved. Genuine consideration of the human consequences demands honest confrontation of what is being done to people. Such considerations do not detract from, indeed they reinforce, the recognition, in an assessment of legality, that those entrusted with such responsibility be given the freedom of lawful decision-making required by Parliament.

6. The Tribunal has decided to attribute this other consideration significant weight in the Applicant's favour. The Tribunal accepts that the uncertainty visited upon the Applicant while he awaits a decision as to whether he will be removed to Nauru would cause him significant distress and anxiety. This other consideration weighs in favour of revocation of the cancellation decision.

1. The Applicant has failed the character test according to s 501(6)(a) of the Act. This means that the Applicant cannot rely on s 501CA(4)(b)(i) as a basis to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa.
2. The issue the Tribunal therefore needs to decide is whether it is satisfied there is another reason why the original cancellation decision should be revoked under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act. In determining this question, the Tribunal has considered the Applicant's representations, and the considerations and factors set out in Direction 110. The Tribunal is required to carry out an evaluative exercise of weighing and balancing the various considerations in order to determine whether it is satisfied that there is 'another reason' to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision.[261]
3. The Applicant has breached the community's expectations by committing very serious offending. The Tribunal has found that primary consideration one and five weigh very heavily against revocation of the mandatory cancellation decision. The Applicant has committed a very serious offence which involved the attempted possession of 10.21 kgs of methamphetamine. There is no question that had that quantity of drugs found its way into the Australian community it would have had devastating consequences.[262] The objective gravity of the Applicant's offending is reflected in the maximum penalty that applies to this offence being life imprisonment. The Tribunal has decided to afford greater weight to primary consideration one: protection of the Australian community, due to the very serious nature of the Applicant's offending.
4. The Tribunal has weighed the primary and other considerations that are in the Applicant's favour. The Tribunal has afforded significant weight to the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia and the best interests of his minor child in Australia. The Tribunal has also afforded significant weight to the legal consequences of the decision and the uncertainty that surrounds the Applicant's removal and relocation to Nauru.
5. The Tribunal has had regard to the principles in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110 and has noted that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government.[263] In line with these principles, the Tribunal considers that the nature of the conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation.[264] The Applicant's conduct in attempting to possess such a significant quantity of drugs is of such seriousness that even strong countervailing considerations are insufficient to justify revoking the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa.
6. Having considered the primary and other considerations relevant to the Applicant's case, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa.

1. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

[63] Under ss 500 (6H) & (6J) of the Act.

[69] STARTTS is the 'Service for the Treatment and Rehabilitation of Torture and Trauma Survivors.'

[76] At pages 302, 297 and 1016 of the Hearing Book.

[78] Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs (2022) 275 CLR 582, 589 [22] ('Plaintiff M1').

[81] HZCP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCAFC 202; (2019) 273 FCR 121 [63]-[79]

[220] FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs (2019) 272 FCR 454 [91].

[222] NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (2023) 280 CLR 137.

[253] Ibid citing XRGY and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, and Multicultural Affair (Migration) [2023] AATA 755 [177].

[260] Hands v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) 267 FCR 628 [3] (Allsop CJ).

[261] CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 138 [27]-[28].