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]

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 measureable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community. > > (5) Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, or by other non-citizens who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only for a short period of time. > > (6) With respect to decisions to refuse, cancel, and revoke cancellation of a visa, Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age. > > (7) Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the non-citizen's conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation. > > (8) The inherent nature of certain conduct such as family violence is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation, even if the information available at the time of consideration suggests that the non-citizen does not pose a measureable 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 Applicant was born in Liberia in 1997. On 23 April 2008, he first arrived in Australia as a 10-year-old on a Class XB Subclass 200 Refugee visa which was granted to him on 31 March 2008 ('visa').[2] He travelled to Australia with his stepmother and siblings. The Applicant and his family settled in Perth.

1. The Applicant was first sentenced as an 18-year-old by the Perth Magistrates Court on 20 June 2016 for two charges of stealing and breach of bail undertaking.[3] He was fined for this offending.
2. On 5 December 2016, the Applicant was again sentenced by the Perth Magistrates Court for one charge of carried (possessed) an article with intent to cause fear and was fined $600.[4]
3. On 1 May 2018 and 21 May 2018, he was sentenced at the Perth Magistrates Court for minor driving offences and was fined.[5]
4. On 15 August 2019, the Applicant was sentenced by the District Court of Western Australia at Perth for one charge each of:[6]
   • With intent to harm, omitted to do any act that it was the person's duty to do or did any act as a result of which the life, health or safety of any person was or was likely to be endangered; and
   • Assault occasioning bodily harm.
5. These offences involved the assault of two persons unknown to the Applicant. The details of this offending will be considered later in these reasons.
6. For this offending, he was sentenced to a total effective sentence of three years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months.[7]

1. On 27 November 2019, the Applicant's visa was mandatorily cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Act as a result of this sentence.[8]
2. On 11 June 2020, the mandatory cancellation decision was revoked by a delegate of the Respondent.[9] The Applicant was issued with a Notification of decision to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision under s 501CA(4).[10] At the time of this revocation decision, the Applicant was issued with the following formal written warning:[11]

'Mr SAYDEE should not expect any second chance. If he is again imprisoned for violent offending, he is very likely to be removed from Australia'. > > Warning: if you engage in further criminal or other serious conduct, this may again result in your visa being cancelled on character grounds.

3. On 11 June 2020, the Applicant signed an acknowledgement of receipt of the notice to revoke the visa:[12]

I, Dennis Nyantee SAYDEE acknowledge that I have received the Notice of decision to revoke visa cancellation under s501CA(4) of the Migration Act 195B. I understand that if I engage in further criminal or other serious conduct, this may again result in any visa I hold being cancelled on character grounds, and in this case my past conduct and previous relevant information held by the Department can also be reconsidered.

1. On 5 July 2022, the Applicant was sentenced by the Midland Magistrates Court for a driving matter and fined $400.[13]
2. On 27 April 2023, he was sentenced by the Midland Magistrates Court for breach of protective bail conditions and fined $200.[14]
3. On 6 July 2023, he was sentenced by the Midland Magistrates Court for two charges of unlawfully assault and thereby did bodily harm with circumstances of aggravation.[15] These offences were committed in the context of family violence against his partner. For the first offence he was sentenced to eight months' imprisonment which was suspended for a period of 10 months. For the second offence he was sentenced to two months' imprisonment which was also suspended for 10 months which was ordered to be served concurrently.[16]
4. On 29 August 2023, the Applicant breached the above suspended sentences by committing a further family violence offence against his partner.[17]
5. On 5 February 2024, he was sentenced by the Midland Magistrates Court for one charge of aggravated assault occasioning bodily harm in relation to the family violence offending that occurred on 29 August and two charges of breaching the suspended sentence orders that were imposed on 6 July 2023.[18] For the assault charge, the Applicant was sentenced to four months' imprisonment which was suspended for 12 months.[19] For the breach of suspended sentence charges, he received a further term of imprisonment of four months and two months respectively. Those sentences were also suspended for a further period of 12 months.[20] The sentence on the assault charge was ordered to be served cumulatively, as was the four months' imprisonment for the breach charge. That meant the Applicant was sentenced to a total effective sentence of eight months' imprisonment which was suspended for 12 months.[21]
6. On 7 August 2024, the Applicant committed violent offending on a person unknown to him.
7. On 18 March 2025, the Applicant was sentenced by the District Court of Western Australia to one charge of doing an act with intent to harm and causing bodily harm for the offending on 7 August.[22] He was sentenced to two years 10 months' imprisonment for this charge.[23] The Applicant was also sentenced on three charges of breach of suspended sentence (being the three suspended sentences imposed on 5 February 2024). For each of these charges, he was sentenced to six months' imprisonment.[24] Those sentences were ordered to be served cumulatively on the head sentence. That meant that the Applicant was sentenced to a total head sentence of three years four months' imprisonment which was backdated to commence on 7 August 2024.[25] He was ordered to serve a period of 20 months before being eligible for parole.[26]

1. On 23 April 2025, the Applicant's visa was mandatorily cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Act.[27]
2. On 20 May 2025, the Applicant made representations seeking revocation of the mandatory cancellation decision.[28]
3. On 26 November 2025, a delegate of the Respondent decided not to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision ('non-revocation decision').[29]
4. On 8 December 2025, the Applicant was notified of the non-revocation decision.[30]
5. On 11 December 2025, the Applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the non-revocation decision.[31]

1. A summary of the Applicant's offending for which he received the above sentences follows.

Sentence - 15 August 2019 ('service station incident')

1. This offence occurred on 19 January 2019 at about 10pm.[32] The Applicant was at a 7/11 service station in Balga, Western Australia. The first victim was being served at the night window of the service station. The Applicant approached him and asked him to buy him a drink. The victim who was not known to the Applicant refused. The Applicant started making threats to the victim. As the victim walked away, the Applicant followed him, walked in front of him and then punched the victim several times in the face, causing facial bruising and bleeding.[33] The victim attempted to defend himself and was unable to fight off the Applicant. The Applicant stopped his attack on this victim to become involved in a separate attack on another victim (the second victim) who was also unknown to him.[34]
2. The second victim went to the aid of his brother who had become involved in a separate altercation with the Applicant. The Applicant then punched the second victim. A short fight broke out between the Applicant and a group of males, however it stopped briefly. The second victim and his brother walked away. The Applicant returned and lunged at the second victim, taking him to the ground. During this altercation, the Applicant pushed the second victim to the ground and kicked him in the head. The Applicant kicked the second victim in the head for a second time causing him to lose consciousness. Whilst the second victim lay unconscious on the ground, the Applicant rummaged through the victim's pockets. The Applicant then used his right foot to stomp and kick the victim to the head as he lay motionless on the ground.[35] The Applicant was arrested by police at the scene.[36]
3. The second victim was transported to hospital by ambulance.[37] The second victim sustained a concussion which required monitoring and assessment for any permanent injuries.[38] The first victim suffered a tripod fracture of the left malar bone (cheekbone) which required surgery and the insertion of metal plates in his eye socket and the side of his nose.[39] The first victim reported in his victim impact statement that he has sought the assistance of a clinical psychologist to help him overcome the trauma of this incident.[40] He reported still feeling fearful and paranoid, and still experiences numbness on the left side of his face.[41]
4. The Applicant was sentenced to three years' imprisonment for this offending.[42] This sentenced triggered the first mandatory cancellation of his visa on 27 November 2019.[43] That mandatory cancellation was later revoked on 11 June 2020.[44]

Sentence - 6 July 2023 ('first family violence incident')

1. This offending occurred on 4 November 2022.[45] At the time of the incident, the Applicant and his partner had been in a domestic relationship for about one year and had a child together.[46] The child was in hospital due to his premature birth. On the date of the incident, the Applicant returned home to where the victim was. An argument broke out regarding the victim visiting her child in hospital.[47] The argument escalated to verbal abuse at which point the Applicant slapped the victim in the face with an open palm.[48] This caused immediate pain and swelling and resulted in significant bruising. The Applicant also grabbed the victim by the left arm and pulled her arm. This caused significant pain, bruising and swelling. The Applicant then left the property and the victim called police. The Applicant later handed himself into police and made admissions to the offending.[49]
2. The Applicant was sentenced to two suspended sentences of imprisonment for this matter which he later breached by committing a further family violence offence against the same victim.

Sentence - 5 February 2024 ('second family violence incident')

1. This offending occurred on 29 August 2023.[50] At the time of the incident, the victim was present with her children and her sister. The Applicant began arguing with the victim about the children, which resulted in the Applicant threatening to kill the victim and her sister if they called police.[51] The Applicant then snatched the victim's phone from her, keeping it in his possession. The Applicant then removed his shoes and threw them at the victim. The first shoe struck the victim to her left eyebrow causing bruising, whilst the second shoe went past the victim and narrowly missed her son who was standing nearby.[52] The Applicant then left the house and walked across the road with the victim's phone. The victim followed the Applicant and asked for her phone back. The Applicant suddenly turned back towards the victim and ran at her, causing her to run away. The Applicant caught up to the victim, grabbed her by her hair and dragged her to the ground.[53] While she lay on the ground, the Applicant dragged the victim across the concrete driveway of the property causing a large graze to the victim's upper left thigh. The Applicant eventually let go of the victim and ran from the area.[54] The Applicant was arrested a few days later and denied the allegations.
2. The Applicant pleaded guilty to the charge on 5 February 2024.[55] He was sentenced to four months' imprisonment suspended for 12 months in respect of this charge.[56] He was also sentenced on this occasion for breaching the two prior suspended sentence orders he received on 6 July 2023. The Applicant received further suspended sentence orders in respect of those breaches.[57]

Sentence - 18 March 2025 ('Metro Church incident')

1. This offending occurred in the early hours of 7 August 2024.[58] The Applicant was on the footpath outside the Metro Church in Perth. The victim in this matter was homeless and sleeping on the top landing of the stairs leading to the front door of the church. The Applicant and the victim were not known to each other. The Applicant walked up the stairs to where the victim was sleeping and without any provocation, the Applicant began to antagonise and yell at the victim.[59] The Applicant stepped forward and threatened to assault him a number of times by cocking his right hand back several times, and feigning punches. The Applicant challenged him to a fight.
2. The Applicant then physically assaulted the victim by hitting him over the head with the Applicant's backpack. After dropping the backpack, the Applicant punched him in the face, which caused him to stumble forwards.[60] The Applicant wrestled with the victim before throwing him to the ground. A bystander intervened and tried to prevent the Applicant from assaulting the victim. The Applicant continued to assault the victim by punching him with a closed fist to the face.[61] The Applicant then threw the victim to the ground and forcefully stomped on his head.[62]
3. After the bystander walked away, the Applicant walked back to the victim who was trying to push him away. The Applicant punched him again with a clenched fist. The Applicant again used his foot to stomp on his head. The Applicant then kicked him to the left side of the head. The Applicant continued to yell at the victim and threatened to knock him out.[63] The incident was captured on CCTV and lasted nearly 20 minutes.[64]
4. The Applicant was arrested about 250 metres from the church at about 2.43am.[65] The victim was taken to hospital. He suffered a blood nose, a cut to his left eye with bruising and swelling to his eyes and face.[66]
5. The Applicant was sentenced to two years and 10 months' imprisonment in relation to this offending. He was also sentenced for three breaches of suspended sentences as follows:

(a) Breach of suspended sentence imposed on 5 February 2024 for the aggravated assault charge ('second family violence incident'). The Applicant was sentenced for this breach on 18 March 2025 and received 6 months' imprisonment. > > (b) Breach of suspended sentence imposed on 5 February 2024. The sentence imposed on 5 February is in respect of an earlier breach of a suspended sentence order that was imposed on 6 July 2023 for the first charge of unlawful assault (being the 'first family violence incident'). The Applicant was sentenced for this breach on 18 March 2025 and received 6 months' imprisonment. > > (c) Breach of suspended sentence imposed on 5 February 2024. The sentence imposed on 5 February is in respect of an earlier breach of a suspended sentence order that was imposed on 6 July 2023 for the second charge of unlawful assault (being the 'first family violence incident'). The Applicant was sentenced for this breach on 18 March 2025 and received 6 months' imprisonment.

6. The Applicant is currently undergoing his prison sentence in respect of these matters.[67]

1. On 19 February 2026, the Tribunal hearing was conducted from Melbourne in a hybrid manner. The Applicant appeared in person at the Perth registry. He was self-represented in the proceedings with assistance from his brother. The Respondent was represented by Ms Charlotte Saunders from the Australian Government Solicitor who appeared by video. The Tribunal received into evidence the following materials:
   • Hearing Book lodged 12 February 2026 comprising 766 pages of material;[68]
   • Letter (undated) from the Applicant's partner with accompanying photographs;[69] and
   • Letter from the Applicant's father dated 1 December 2025.[70]
2. The Applicant gave evidence and was cross-examined. Prior to giving evidence, he was informed about his privilege against self-incrimination. He indicated to the Tribunal that he understood that privilege. The Applicant also called oral evidence from his partner and father who both attended the Perth registry in person.
3. A summary of the oral evidence follows.

1. The Applicant told the Tribunal he arrived in Australia when he was about 10 years old. He arrived with his siblings and stepmother. His older siblings came to Australia later. He has about 12 siblings in Australia with two siblings in Melbourne and 10 siblings in Perth. He doesn't speak with his siblings in Melbourne but has a relationship with some of his siblings in Perth. He has a good relationship with his father and stepmother, although they don't visit him in prison because his stepmother is unwell. He speaks to them on the phone.
2. The Applicant confirmed he is close with his nieces and nephews. One of his sibling's children has been removed from their parents' care, so he last saw those children three years ago. He knows he has two siblings who live in the United States and other siblings who live in Africa. He hasn't met the siblings that live in Africa, and he only knows about them through his parents.
3. The Applicant has been in a de facto relationship with his partner for five years. They have two children together and his partner has a child from another relationship. The Applicant said his relationship with his partner has had 'ups and downs'. He told the Tribunal their infant son passed away. He said that's when he began to engage in family violence against her and got 'locked up.'
4. He said his partner has always been there for him, but after losing their son, things haven't been the same. She visits him in prison once a week and they speak every day on the phone. He first met his partner's child when he was two years old. He said their son passed away just after he turned one. The Applicant's daughter was born while their son was in the hospital. When the Applicant was in the community, he used to take the children to the park and to the shops. He spent whatever spare time he had with them. Since he has been in gaol, he feels he is missing out on their childhoods and wants to make it up to them. His daughter visits him once a week, but his stepson is not allowed to visit due to the orders in place from the previous family violence incident. He said his stepson has autism. The Applicant is close to his daughter who is currently two years old.
5. The Applicant was cross-examined about the first family violence incident where he slapped his partner and pulled and grabbed her arm. He said that when his son passed away, he thought his world was coming to an end. He said his partner 'was coming in (his) face' and he snapped. He was arrested a day later. The Respondent noted that this incident occurred before his son passed away, but the Applicant said his son was in hospital at the time, and he didn't take the news of his son's illness well.
6. The Applicant was asked how he would handle bad news in the future. He said he knows his son wouldn't want him carrying on in this way. At the time he was trying to numb his feelings by drinking. He said playing sports calms him down and he has started seeing a counsellor in prison. He has had three sessions with the counsellor which he has found useful. He knows he needs to keep seeing the counsellor and that he has a long way to go. The Applicant said he knows he needs to not 'bottle stuff up' otherwise '(he) will explode.' When he sees negativity, it is hard for him to walk away. The Applicant said there was no reason to behave in the way he did. He said his mental health was not good at the time.
7. It was put to the Applicant that when he attacked the homeless man, the Applicant approached him. The Applicant said he just told himself it was 'ok' and he just wanted someone else to feel his pain. The Applicant admitted that he needs more than counselling and needs to continue his anti-depressant medication. He is prepared to do rehabilitation. When asked what he would need rehabilitation for, he said he doesn't feel like he needs it, but would do it if he had to. He knows he needs to seek professional help. He has his kids to live for.
8. If he had any disagreements with his partner in the future, he knows to walk away. The Applicant said if he can stay away from drugs and alcohol, that will also contribute to his success. He used to take 'party pills, smoke weed and drink alcohol' but hasn't used drugs for about three years now. He knows drugs are not meant for him because they make him violent and aggressive. Alcohol used to be a problem for him but now he has stopped drinking or using cannabis because he is subject to drug testing in prison. He agreed that in relation to the most recent offence he wasn't under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The Applicant agreed that drugs and alcohol are not the sole cause of his offending.
9. He said he completed an alcohol and drug program about five years ago and recalls completing a family violence program. He was also placed on a 'Violence Stop' program but he was late in attending the programs, so he was removed from the course. He wanted to do the course, however. He said when he attended, he was taught how to walk away from situations and other coping mechanisms. However, he agreed he committed his most recent offending after the course. The Applicant said he knew people were trying to help him, but he wanted to cure things himself. He let his pride get in the way. It was put to him that he previously had his visa cancelled in 2019 and was given a second chance. The Applicant said that slipped his mind, and at the time he didn't know how to help himself. He doesn't want to make excuses, and he now knows he can't help himself and he stands to lose everything.
10. If he is released into the community, he plans to go back to work, keep busy, play soccer and listen to music. He wants a second chance and said that things are different this time. He has his children here in Australia, and no ties back home. Everything he knows is in Australia. The Applicant plans to return to live with his partner and engage in his previous job of painting and landscaping. He wants to work in the mines and make good money to provide for his family. The medication he is currently taking is helping him function again.
11. The Applicant doesn't think he would pose a threat to the community if his visa was restored. He said his children mean the world to him and he has to get better to support himself, his partner and his parents. He knows he has the support of his partner and parents if he is released. He said he now has a diagnosis of depression, and the medication he is taking is now helping him.

1. The Applicant's partner said she has been in a stable de facto relationship with the Applicant for about four years. They did separate for a short period after their child passed away. She said the violence in their relationship happened when their child passed away. She said the first family violence incident happened in November 2022 when her son was hospitalised. She denied telling police that in regard to the second family violence incident in August 2023 that the Applicant said he would kill her. She said she believes a threat may have been made but he didn't use those words. She said it was a dark time for both of them, because they were told their son wouldn't survive.
2. She said those incidents are in the past and not relevant to who the Applicant is today. She agreed there was a Protection Order in place from about 2023 to 2025, and they were not in contact during this period. She said they have children together. They care for each other deeply. She said they have endured the premature birth of their son, and were told he would not survive. She said anyone in those circumstances would be upset. She said they didn't get support from the hospital.
3. She said she knows the Applicant needs grief counselling so he can deal with the grief of the loss of his son. She doesn't think the Applicant will be a risk if he is released into the community. He has done some healing in prison and hasn't had a chance to be a father figure. She said everyone deserves a second chance.
4. She said the Applicant now has a support system in place which includes herself, his father, his counselling and he has the support of his daughter. She said people make mistakes and his offending is in the past. He has learned from his mistakes. If the Applicant is released into the community, she knows he will need to attend counselling and look for employment opportunities to keep himself busy.

1. The Applicant's father said he has a close relationship with the Applicant. He said he has suffered after seeing his son in prison and suffered a stroke in December 2024. The Applicant's father knows he is in prison because he beat someone.
2. He said if the Applicant were deported, it would have an emotional impact on him because he loves all his children and wants to see them.

1. The Tribunal needs to determine two issues in this review.

First issue: Does the Applicant pass the character test?

1. The first issue the Tribunal needs to determine is whether the Applicant passes the character test. On 18 March 2025, the Applicant was sentenced by the District Court of Western Australia to two years 10 months' imprisonment for the offence of doing an act with intent to harm and causing bodily harm.[71]
2. The Applicant therefore has a 'substantial criminal record' according to the definition in

s 501(7) of the Act because he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more. A person who has a 'substantial criminal record' does not pass the character test according to s 501(6)(a) of the Act. 3. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant does not pass the character test. Accordingly, he 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.[72] 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.[73] The weight to be afforded to the representations is a matter for the decision-maker.[74]
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.

2. 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.
3. 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) without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered very serious, the types of crimes or conduct described below are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian community: > > i. violent and/or sexual crimes; > > ii. crimes of a violent and/or sexual nature against women or children, regardless of the sentence imposed; > > iii. acts of family violence, regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed;

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 considered the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's criminal offending to date. The Tribunal considers that the Applicant's offending can be regarded as very serious. His most recent offence involved the unprovoked attack on a homeless man who was sleeping on the steps of a church. The Applicant attacked this person by punching him in the face, stomping on his head and kicking him in the head. The violence was completely unprovoked and unwarranted. The attack lasted for nearly 20 minutes and was captured by CCTV which was viewed by the sentencing judge. The victim posed no threat at all to the Applicant. The sentencing judge made the following comments in regard to this offending:[75]

Now, Mr Saydee, you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself. Your offending was appalling. It was very serious conduct indeed. > > The first aggravating circumstance is that you were already on a suspended sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court following your convictions for aggravated assault occasioning bodily harm, charges which occurred in a domestic setting. You were, I would suggest, extremely lucky not to have been sent to prison on that occasion. Secondly, you assaulted the victim here in circumstances where he had offered no provocation to you. > > Your assault on him was completely unjustified and gratuitous. You assaulted him repeatedly and in various ways. Your offending was persistent. You assaulted him to vulnerable areas of the body, most notably his head. Although his injuries were not life-threatening, your conduct certainly had the potential to result in more serious injury. The victim was very vulnerable. He was homeless. He was sleeping rough. He was unknown to you. And he was unarmed. > > In my view, there were no mitigating circumstances arising from the commission of that offence. As [your counsel] frankly concedes, there is little by way of justification other than you claim that your mental health was in a poor place. Now, I accept, Mr Saydee, that you were grieving the loss of your infant son. But in no way was your assault on this poor man justified. And as I've said before, you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself.

5. The Applicant's recent offending was violent and meets the definition of conduct that may be viewed as very serious according to paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a)(i) of Direction 110.
6. This also applies to the Applicant's offending in regard to the service station incident. That offending was also violent and unprovoked. That offending was also captured on CCTV and was viewed by the sentencing judge. The sentencing judge said this about the offending:[76]

Look, I've had a look at the CCTV footage. This was extraordinarily violent. The flooring in the outside of the service station was concrete. You were wearing sandshoes or running shoes of some kind and perhaps that might have saved [the second victim] a more significant injury but the ferocity of your attack on ]the second victim], your complete lack of empathy for him was evidence. > > It was clear that he was unconscious after you kicked him and then you proceeded after rummaging through his pockets in clearly a state of extraordinary rage, you've stomped on his head. > > How he wasn't killed I'll never know because that's as serious as it could have been. If his head had lifted off the ground between stomping on him, you could have ploughed his head straight into the concrete and you could easily have killed him and that's how serious it was. It was extraordinarily violent and completely inexcusable.

7. The Applicant's offending at the service station was violent and meets the definition of conduct that may be viewed as very serious according to paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a)(i) of Direction 110.
8. The Applicant's two family violence incidents also meet the definition of very serious conduct according to paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a)(iii) of Direction 110. They were both acts of family violence. The first incident involved the Applicant slapping and pulling and grabbing the victim. The second family violence incident involved the Applicant throwing his shoes at the victim, with one shoe narrowly missing her child. He also dragged the victim along a concrete driveway causing an abrasion to her leg.
9. The Applicant's criminal offending to date can therefore be appropriately described as very serious.
10. The Tribunal has had regard to the other factors listed at paragraph 8.1.1(1) of Direction 110 as follows.
11. The sentence imposed: This subparagraph requires decision-makers to consider (with the exception of the crimes or conduct mentioned in subparagraph (a)(ii), (a)(iii) or (b)(i)) the sentence imposed by the court for a crime or crimes.
12. The Applicant was sentenced to two years 10 months' imprisonment for the most recent offending. The maximum penalty for that offending was 20 years.[77] The sentencing judge accepted that the Applicant's plea of guilty was entered at an early stage, but the Applicant's conduct was aggravated by the fact that he was already on a suspended sentence at the time.[78] The sentencing judge considered the Applicant had some prospect for rehabilitation provided he was committed to and willing to undergo treatment.[79]
13. In regard to the service station incident, the Applicant was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment in relation to the assault on the first victim and two years six months' imprisonment in relation to the second victim.[80] The offence for which the Applicant was convicted for the first victim was punishable by a maximum of five years' imprisonment, whereas the offence in regard to the second victim was punishable by 20 years' imprisonment.[81] The sentencing judge took into account the Applicant's early plea of guilty and his genuine remorse.[82] The sentencing judge ordered that six months of the sentence imposed in regard to the assault of the first victim should be served cumulatively on the charge in regard to the second victim because 'there was a gap between the first offending and the second offending.'[83] The sentencing judge found that the Applicant was the instigator on both occasions.[84]
14. The Tribunal has had regard to the sentences imposed for the Applicant's offending. The Tribunal finds that these sentences reflect the objective gravity of his violent conduct. In regard to the service station incident, the sentencing judge determined that it was not appropriate to suspend those terms of imprisonment because it would not reflect the degree of the Applicant's criminality.[85] The Tribunal has taken this into account and considers that the terms of imprisonment that were required to be served immediately are a reflection of the objective gravity of the offending.
15. Impact of the offending: This subparagraph requires decision-makers to consider the impact of the offending on any victims and their families. The Tribunal has had regard to the impact of the Applicant's offending on his victims. All three of the Applicant's victims required treatment in hospital for their injuries.[86] The first victim of the service station incident required surgery to repair a tripod fracture in his cheekbone.[87] He provided a victim impact statement to the court which said that as a result of the Applicant's assault on him, he had to seek the assistance of a clinical psychologist to help him overcome the trauma.[88] He also remains fearful and paranoid.[89] The sentencing judge noted that the victim went to a service station where he was going to buy something and ended up having to have surgery for a broken cheekbone.[90] The Tribunal considers the impact of the Applicant's offending on all three of his victims to be very serious. The Tribunal has also given weight to the impact of the Applicant's family violence offending against his partner, though has noted his partner remains supportive of him.
16. Frequency and seriousness: This subparagraph requires decision-makers to consider the frequency of the non-citizen's offending and/or whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness. The Tribunal considers the Applicant's offending has been frequent and there is an increasing trend of seriousness. His first offences involved stealing and minor driving offences. His offending then escalated to the service station assaults, family violence and finally the Metro Church assault. The offending was violent and unprovoked and has increased in its seriousness.
17. Cumulative effect: This subparagraph requires decision-makers to consider the cumulative effect of repeated offending. The Tribunal has had regard to the cumulative effect of the Applicant's repeated offending. In this case, the Applicant has breached previous suspended sentences by committing further family violence offending and the Metro Church offending. When the Applicant was afforded the opportunity of being given suspended sentences for his family violence offending, he continued to breach those orders. The cumulative effect of this offending is that the Applicant fell to be resentenced on those charges, requiring further charges to be laid, further resentencing and further use of police and court resources.
18. Providing false or misleading information: This subparagraph requires decision-makers to consider whether the non-citizen has provided any false or misleading information to the Department, including by not disclosing prior criminal offending. There is no evidence that this factor applies to the Applicant's circumstances.
19. Reoffending since being formally warned: This subparagraph requires decision-makers to consider whether the non-citizen has reoffended since being formally warned, or otherwise being made aware, in writing, about the consequences of further offending on the non-citizen's migration status. This factor applies to the Applicant's circumstances. On 27 November 2019, the Applicant's visa was cancelled after he was sentenced for the service station offending.[91] On 11 June 2020, the Applicant was notified that his visa cancellation was revoked.[92] He was advised in writing that 'he should not expect a second chance.'[93] He was formally advised that if he is imprisoned again for violent offending, he is very likely to be removed from Australia.[94] The formal written warning stated that if he engaged in further criminal or other serious conduct, this may result in his visa being cancelled on character grounds.[95] He was provided with a full list of the character grounds under s 501 of the Act.[96] The Applicant signed an acknowledgement on 11 June 2020, stating that he understood that if he engaged in further criminal or other serious conduct, this may again result in visa cancellation.[97] The Applicant has reoffended since being formally warned of the consequences of further offending. He committed the next set of offending on 4 November 2022 in which he engaged in family violence. He committed family violence again on 29 August 2023. He committed his most recent offending on 7 August 2024. All of these offences were of a violent nature. The Tribunal considers the Applicant's disregard for this previous written warning as a serious matter which weighs heavily against revoking this current visa cancellation. The Tribunal has taken this into account.
20. Overseas conduct: This subparagraph is relevant where the offence or conduct was committed in another country. This factor is not relevant to the Applicant's circumstances.
21. After considering the factors at paragraph 8.1.1(1) of Direction 110, the Tribunal concludes that the Applicant's offending conduct is very serious. The factors considered above weigh very heavily against the Applicant, especially the impact of the offending, the frequency and increasing seriousness of the offending, the cumulative effect of repeated offending, and the fact that the Applicant has been formally warned about the consequences of further offending on his migration status.

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. This 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 nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct is that it could cause serious physical and psychological harm to the victims. The Applicant could kill or seriously injure a member of the Australian community should he reoffend in a similar manner. The sentencing judge noted the following in respect of the second victim of the service station incident:[98]

How he wasn't killed I'll never know because that's as serious as it could have been. If his head had lifted off the ground between stomping on him, you could have ploughed his head straight into the concrete and you could easily have killed him and that's how serious it was. It was extraordinarily violent and completely inexcusable.

2. The Tribunal considers the nature of the harm to be very serious as any future conduct has the potential to again seriously injure a person or even kill them. This factor weighs heavily against the Applicant.

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

1. In considering this factor the Tribunal must take into account information and evidence on the risk of the non-citizen reoffending, and evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision.

Circumstances regarding the Metro Church incident

1. In considering the mitigating circumstances of his most recent offence, the sentencing judge noted that the Applicant submitted his 'mental health was in a poor place.'[99] The sentencing judge accepted that the Applicant was grieving the loss of his infant son but noted that this in no way justifies his behaviour.[100]
2. The sentencing judge accepted that the Applicant had a difficult upbringing, having spent time in a refugee camp, before coming to Australia.[101] It was noted that the Applicant has some family support and had a good upbringing. The Applicant described his parents as 'strict but well-intentioned.'[102]
3. The Applicant finished school in Year 10 and had been to TAFE to do a painting, plastering and carpentry course.[103] The Applicant told the Tribunal he had been previously employed as a landscaper.
4. The sentencing judge noted that the Applicant has treatment needs, as he has abused alcohol since he was a teenager, and has used cannabis and methamphetamine.[104] The sentencing judge noted there was no psychological report before the court, but it was accepted that the Applicant was grieving the loss of his son. It was noted that he has since received medication and his mental health needs have improved.[105]
5. The sentencing judge noted that the Applicant has participated in the Men's Behaviour Change Program 'Connect and Respect' but did not engage in that program in a meaningful way.[106] When taking into account his prior suspended sentence, and other criminal history, the sentencing judge concluded that the Applicant was at risk of re-offending.[107]

Circumstances regarding the service station incident

1. There was a psychological report before the sentencing judge in regard to the service station incident.[108] That report is not before the Tribunal, but its content was summarised by the court as follows:[109]

The psychologist said that with the support of family and a desire to work and address your problems, she assesses you to be at a moderate risk of future violence. And then only if you do not address your treatment needs, particularly substance misuse and your unstable lifestyle. > > The psychologist says that your treatment needs relate to your violence, and to ensure that you don't continue to drink significantly and regularly. There's some mental health issues and emotional regulation. It's likely you're going to need a combination of group-based programs and some individual counselling.

1. In his Personal Circumstances form, the Applicant said he wanted his poor mental health taken into account, as he still needs treatment to address the trauma of losing his son.[110] He said he is working on himself and trying to better himself for the future. He is now on medication and is on the waitlist for mental health treatment.[111] He told the Tribunal he has seen a counsellor on three occasions since being in prison and has found this to be helpful.
2. In his written submissions to the Tribunal, it is submitted that he poses a very low risk to the community. It is submitted that he has engaged in rehabilitation programs to address the factors that caused his offending. He has undergone vocational training in carpentry and is working on the 'prison bed contract' and requires minimal supervision within the custodial environment.[112] The provision of positive behavioural support and rehabilitation programs will further address the causes of his offending.[113]

1. The Tribunal has had regard to other materials which provide information and evidence on the Applicant's risk and evidence of rehabilitation that has been achieved.
2. The Tribunal has had regard to a Department of Justice 'Education and Vocational Training Checklist' created on 31 March 2025.[114] That report provides details of courses completed by the Applicant within the custodial environment.[115] Those courses include literacy courses and workplace health and safety courses.[116]
3. A 'Parole Review Report' created on 13 August 2021 indicated that the Applicant has completed the 'Alternatives to Violence Program' and the 'General Offending Medium Intensity Program.'[117]
4. In a 'Treatment Assessment Report' created 11 August 2020, the Applicant was administered the Level of Service/Risk, Need Responsivity (LS-RNR) tool by a Community Corrections Officer on 25 May 2020.[118] The Applicant expressed a strong desire to engage in treatment programs to reduce his risk of reoffending, and presented as favourable towards treatment and supervision.[119] Overall, the Applicant was assessed as a medium risk of reoffending.[120]
5. In the same report, the Applicant was assessed as a high risk of reoffending on the Violent Risk Scale: Screening Version (VRS-SV).[121] He was found to have treatment needs in the areas of interpersonal aggression, lack of emotional control and lack of personal control.[122] As a result of these assessments, it was recommended that the Applicant participate in the Medium Intensity Program (MIP), as opposed to the Intensive Violent Offending Program to address his outstanding treatment needs.[123] It was reported that he completed this program in prison on 21 July 2021 and had, at that time, recently completed the Alternatives to Violence Program.[124]

1. The Respondent submits that there is a real likelihood of the Applicant reoffending because:[125]

(a) He has a propensity for violence when not under the influence of alcohol; > > (b) There is a risk that he would engage in further violent behaviour in the face of further adverse life experiences; > > (c) There is a lack of evidence regarding any rehabilitation courses he has undertaken; > > (d) The previous visa cancellation did not deter the Applicant from reoffending; > > (e) He has demonstrated little remorse or understanding of the impact of his offending; and > > (f) The Applicant previously had the support of his partner and family but this did not prevent him from offending in the past.

2. The Respondent submits that this primary consideration as a whole should be given very significant weight in favour of not revoking the mandatory visa cancellation.[126]

1. The Tribunal has had regard to the above materials on the Applicant's risk and has noted the gains the Applicant has made to further his rehabilitation. The Tribunal notes his completion of specific programs to address his treatment needs, and the courses and employment he has undertaken in prison.
2. The Tribunal has noted that the Applicant has previously been assessed as a medium risk of reoffending but received a high risk of reoffending when assessed in August 2020. Unfortunately, the Applicant did continue to reoffend and commit further serious violent offences. The Tribunal has had regard to the difficult circumstances which confronted the Applicant when his first child was born prematurely and died some months later. Those difficult circumstances provide some context for the Applicant's poor behaviour, but it does not excuse it.
3. The Tribunal notes the Applicant has had the opportunity to reform by being provided with suspended sentence orders, however each of those orders was breached. His previous visa cancellation also did not provide the Applicant with a sufficient deterrence to prevent him from reoffending.
4. The Tribunal considers the Applicant is remorseful for his conduct. His remorse has been demonstrated by his early pleas of guilty for each of his offences. That factor was taken into account in his favour by the courts when passing sentence. Regard was also had to his relatively young age (in respect of his earlier offending) and his difficult upbringing.
5. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant has the support of his partner and family. His children act as a protective factor and incentive for the Applicant to not reoffend in the future. The Applicant acknowledged that he needs treatment and support to address his underlying grief. The Applicant told the Tribunal he has found counselling and medication useful in addressing his therapeutic needs.
6. The Tribunal considers there is a real likelihood of the Applicant reoffending in the future. The Tribunal assesses this risk as medium. This finding is based on his previous criminal history, the nature of his violent offending, and lack of concrete plans to address his unmet treatment needs within the community. The Tribunal notes the Applicant's poor compliance with previous suspended sentence orders and the fact that a previous visa cancellation did not act as an appropriate deterrent.
7. 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 nature of the harm that would be caused if the conduct were repeated is unacceptable.

1. The Tribunal concludes that this primary consideration weighs very heavily against revocation of the mandatory cancellation decision.
2. The Tribunal has decided to afford this primary consideration greater weight than the other primary considerations as it is permitted to do under paragraph 7(2) of the Direction given the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's repeated violent offending, and the risk to the Australian community should he reoffend.

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 non-citizen has been convicted, found guilty or had charges proven howsoever described, that involve family violence.
3. Paragraph 8.2(3) provides that in considering the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the non-citizen, the following factors must be considered where relevant:

a) the frequency of the non-citizen's conduct and/or whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness; > > b) the cumulative effect of repeated acts of family violence; > > c) rehabilitation achieved at time of decision since the person's last known act of family violence, including: > > i. the extent to which the person accepts responsibility for their family violence related conduct; > > ii. the extent to which the non-citizen understands the impact of their behaviour on the abused and witness of that abuse (particularly children); > > iii. efforts to address factors which contributed to their conduct; and > > d) Whether the non-citizen has re-offended since being formally warned, or since Otherwise being made aware by a Court, law enforcement or other authority, about the consequences of further acts of family violence, noting that the absence of a warning should not be considered to be in the non-citizen's favour. This includes warnings about the non-citizen's migration status, should the non-citizen engage in further acts of family violence.

4. This primary consideration is relevant to the Applicant's circumstances. He has been convicted of three family violence charges over two separate incidences.
5. The Tribunal has considered the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the Applicant by considering the following factors:
6. Frequency and/or increasing trend of seriousness: The Applicant engaged in two separate incidents of family violence which were committed approximately nine months apart. The first incident involved the Applicant slapping the victim's face and pulling and grabbing her arm. This incident left bruises on the Applicant. The second incident involved the Applicant making threats to kill the Applicant, taking her phone, and dragging her to the ground and dragging her along a concrete driveway leaving an abrasion on her leg. The Tribunal finds that there was an increasing level of seriousness to the Applicant's offending.
7. Cumulative effect of repeated acts of family violence: The Applicant was placed on suspended sentence orders in relation to these family violence episodes which he breached. The cumulative effect of this offending would have placed pressure on the police and justice system because of his repeated breaches.
8. Rehabilitation achieved at the time of the decision: There is minimal evidence before the Tribunal regarding the Applicant's rehabilitation since the last known act of family violence. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant is remorseful for his conduct, and that he understands the impact of his offending on his partner. He told the Tribunal he was grieving the loss of his son at the time, and this was placing a huge emotional toll on the couple. The Tribunal considers that does not excuse the behaviour. The sentencing remarks in regard to the most recent offending stated that the Applicant participated in the Men's Behaviour Change Program 'Connect and Respect' but it was reported that the Applicant did not engage with that program in a meaningful way.[127] A 'Family Violence Court - Progress Report' dated 29 June 2023 stated that he commenced this program on 11 April 2023.[128] It was reported that:[129]

Mr Saydee commenced the Connect and Respect Program on the 11th of April 2023 and is scheduled to complete the program on the 29th June 2023. Feedback from the facilitators on the 15th of June 2023 revealed Mr Saydee presents as resistant when challenged, is often emotionally unregulated, regularly doesn't engage and contradicts himself and repeatedly advises he does not need to be in the program. Further, he is combative, attempts to exercise power and control with facilitators and had made no treatment gains and it appeared he was wasting time with his attendance at the program. > > It is noted, Mr Saydee failed to attend his session on the 15th of June 2023 due to the above issues, however recommenced attending on the 20th of June 2023. Facilitators noted a dramatic change in his behaviour since this, noting he apparently had a good session and presented as more active than previous and was more open with talking in general conversation. It is however questioned if it is possible Mr Saydee was engaging in impression management given he presented with such a dramatic change. Facilitators note it is not common for participants to suddenly take in so much so close to the end of program, especially when the week prior he was stating how he had gained nothing from those 18 sessions and it was a waste of time. Again, it is therefore highlighted Mr Saydee made no gains through his engagement in the program.

9. The Report noted that the Applicant was assessed as 'having made no gains through his attendance in the program' and therefore still has outstanding treatment needs.[130] The Tribunal considers that while the Applicant expressed his remorse for his offending through his pleas of guilty and his expression of remorse to the Tribunal, the evidence suggests that he still requires ongoing treatment to address any outstanding issues. This was also the recommendation of the author of the Report who stated that his treatment needs include:

...increasing empathy and perspective taking, developing accountability and responsibility taking, understanding Family Domestic Violence and Abuse (FDVA) and its impacts on others, developing assertive communication and safe conflict resolution skills, addressing issues surrounding jealousy and his use of power and control within intimate relationships, increasing emotion awareness and emotion regulation skills...

10. Whether the non-citizen has reoffended since being formally warned: The Applicant was formally made aware by the court at his first sentence for his family violence offending that should the Applicant reoffend in a similar manner, he would be facing an immediate term of imprisonment.[131] At the date of his sentence on 6 July 2023, the sentencing judge stated:[132]

So the ball is in your court. If you have some issues that you need to address, you need to address it, Mr Saydee, because if you come back to the court in relation to this type of behaviour again, I would have thought that an immediate term of imprisonment is what will flow. Do you understand that? > > ACCUSED: Yes, sir.

11. The Applicant did reoffend since being provided this formal warning by the court. He reoffended shortly after this sentence was handed down (on 6 July 2023) by committing further family violence offending on 29 August 2023. The sentencing judge acknowledged that when passing sentence in regard to the further episode, that the recent offending breached the previous suspended sentence order of 6 July 2023.[133] However, in determining to sentence the Applicant to a further suspended sentence, the sentencing judge took into account the circumstances surrounding the illness and death of the Applicant's infant child, which the Tribunal understands provides important context for the offending.[134] The Tribunal has already made a finding that those circumstances do not excuse the Applicant's behaviour.

1. The Tribunal concludes that primary consideration two weighs heavily against the Applicant. It is afforded heavy weight because of the increasing seriousness of the Applicant's offending, the cumulative effect of his repeated acts of family violence, and the fact he reoffended after being formally warned by a court about the consequences of further acts of family violence.

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

1. Paragraph 8.3(1) 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 a right to remain in Australia indefinitely.
2. Paragraph 8.3(2) 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 has the following immediate family members in Australia:

(a) His partner; > > (b) His child and stepchild; > > (c) Father and stepmother; and > > (d) His siblings.

4. The Applicant's partner has provided two written statements in support of the Applicant and gave oral evidence to the Tribunal.[135] She told the Tribunal they have been in a de facto relationship for about four years. She said they have experienced 'ups and downs' and have also had a period of separation. She told the Tribunal that she loves the Applicant very much. They have experienced the grief of losing their child so they understand what the other is going through.
5. She said they have a very close bond and they know they can always rely on each other for comfort.[136] She has visited him every week since he has been incarcerated, and they speak on the phone every day.[137] She said if his visa is cancelled, it will destroy their family and severely impact the lives of their children.[138] Their children would lose their father and this will turn their lives upside down.[139] The Applicant's partner said she has also been struggling financially because he was working before his incarceration and assisting with bills and groceries.[140] She said if his visa isn't restored this will have significant adverse negative effects on her, her children and the Applicant.[141] She understands he has made mistakes, but she wants him to get back on his feet, secure employment, and grow their family together.[142] She said his mistakes don't define the person he is.[143]
6. In her most recent letter, she said she is struggling to keep the family together as she has taken on the role of sole provider for their family.[144] She is already experiencing so much emotional distress because the man she loves is incarcerated, but she is also grieving the loss of her son, and is concerned for the family and future she is trying to build.[145] She said the emotional toll of losing her partner would be horrific to her mental health.[146] The fear of deportation has added to this stress and she has started taking antidepressant medication because she has fallen into severe depression and chronic anxiety because of this situation.[147]
7. The Applicant has a biological child with his partner. He has also become a stepparent to his partner's other child. The Applicant's biological child is currently 2 years old and his step son is 6 years old. The Applicant's partner stated that the children feel the absence of their father every day and keep asking when he is coming home.[148] She said they struggle with confusion, sadness and emotional distress.[149] She said the children need their father home with them to provide emotional, practical and financial support.[150] She said the Applicant has always been an active and loving father and stepped up and took on the role of father to her first born child, whom he has known since he was two years old.[151] She said their daughter shares a close bond with the Applicant and they demonstrate unconditional love, admiration and care to each other. She said the Applicant is a wonderful father to their child.[152]
8. The Applicant's father wrote two letters in support of his son and also gave oral evidence to the Tribunal.[153] The Applicant's father said he has been deeply devastated and heartbroken about the Applicant's offending, stating that this is not who they are as a family.[154]
9. He said deporting the Applicant to Liberia would be devastating to their family.[155] He said he is willing to support the Applicant if he is allowed to stay.[156]
10. The Applicant's siblings have not provided statements to the Tribunal, but the Tribunal accepts that they would also be emotionally impacted by a non-revocation decision. The Applicant has 16 siblings in Australia, with two of the siblings residing in Melbourne. He reported a close relationship to some of his siblings and their children. The Tribunal has had regard to the Applicant's evidence that his stepmother has not been well and that his father is aging. The Tribunal accepts and acknowledges that a non-revocation decision upon his parents and siblings would have a significant detrimental impact.
11. The Tribunal has also had regard to the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's other ties to the Australian community. The Applicant arrived in Australia as a 10-year-old in April 2008 and has lived in Perth all of his adult life. The Applicant's family have also settled in Perth and it's where his partner and children live. The Applicant's former soccer coach has written a letter in support of the Applicant stating that the Applicant is a person of great character who consistently demonstrates kindness, respect, and a willingness to help others.[157] He said the Applicant is a role model within the squad and has earnt the trust and admiration of those around him.[158]
12. The Tribunal also acknowledges the Applicant has established ties to the Australian community through his schooling, employment and sporting pursuits. The Applicant was employed as a landscaper prior to his incarceration.[159] He also played soccer and has established ties through his association with soccer clubs in his local area.[160]
13. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant has been in the Australian community since the age of 10 and has established significant ties to Australia. His positive contribution to the Australian community is limited however given his lengthy criminal history which commenced in 2016 when he was 18 years old.

1. The Tribunal has had regard to the impact that a non-revocation decision would have on the Applicant's immediate family members in Australia. The Tribunal accepts that his partner, children, parents and siblings would be significantly negatively impacted by a non-revocation decision. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant's partner depends on the Applicant for emotional, practical and financial support as a loving partner and father to their children. The Tribunal accepts she will be significantly impacted because she has also experienced the devastation of losing their child. It is accepted that a decision to not revoke the cancellation of the Applicant's visa would have a similar devastating impact on her.
2. The Tribunal has had regard to the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's other ties to the Australian community. The Tribunal has accepted the Applicant has established significant ties having resided here since he was 10 years old. He has built ties to the community through his schooling, employment and sporting pursuits.
3. The Tribunal has decided this primary consideration weighs significantly in favour of revoking the mandatory cancellation decision.
4. The Tribunal has decided however that the weight attributed to primary consideration one outweighs the weight attributed to this primary consideration. That is because of the very serious nature of the Applicant's repeated violent offending, and the risk he poses to the Australian community should the Applicant reoffend.

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. 2. This consideration only applies if the child is, or would be, under 18 years old at the time the decision is made.[161] If there are two or more relevant children, the best interests of each child should be given individual consideration to the extent that their interests may differ.[162] Paragraph 8.4(4) identifies certain factors that must be considered where relevant. 3. There are two minor children that need to be considered under this primary consideration being the Applicant's biological daughter and stepson.[163] The Applicant also reported that he has minor nieces and nephews that he has contact with in his Personal Circumstances form.[164] He also reported contact with another sibling's children but stated he hasn't seen those children for some years. The Tribunal does not have any other information about the minor nieces and nephews and is not aware as to how their interests may differ, so will consider their best interests together. 4. The Applicant's minor daughter: The Applicant's minor daughter is two years old and resides with her mother (the Applicant's partner). The relationship between the Applicant and minor child is parental in nature. The Applicant has been in custody since 7 August 2024 when he was arrested for his most recent offending so there has been a period of absence, although the Applicant has maintained contact with his daughter during this period. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant is likely to play a positive role in her future given the length of time until she turns 18. There is no evidence that the Applicant's prior family violence conduct has negatively impacted his child. The Tribunal has had regard to the likely effect that separation would have on his minor child. The Tribunal accepts that the effect of separation would be significant even if they could maintain contact in other ways. The Tribunal has accepted the evidence of the Applicant's partner when she stated that her children need a father figure in their life. The Tribunal accepts that physical separation would negatively impact the Applicant's minor child, even though the child's mother fulfills a parental role in her life. The views of the child are known through the statements of her mother and it is clear from those materials that the minor child misses her father. There is no evidence that the child has suffered or experienced any physical or emotional trauma from the non-citizen's conduct. 5. The Tribunal accepts that it would be in the best interests of this child for the visa cancellation decision to be revoked. This is given significant weight in the Applicant's favour. 6. The Applicant's minor stepson: The Applicant's minor stepson is six years old and resides with his mother (the Applicant's partner). The relationship between the Applicant and the minor child is parental in nature, with the Applicant commencing a relationship with his partner when the child was two years old. The Applicant has been in custody since 7 August 2024 when he was arrested for his most recent offending so there has been a period of absence. There was a court order in place preventing access between the Applicant and his stepson due to the second family violence incident when he threw a shoe at his partner and narrowly missed the stepson.[165] Any future family violence conduct would also negatively impact this child. It is accepted however that given the child's age, the Applicant would be able to play a positive role in his future should he not reoffend. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the Applicant's partner that her child misses the Applicant. The child's mother already fulfills a parental role in the child's life, although the Tribunal accepts the Applicant's partner's evidence that he needs a father figure in his life. The child has been exposed to family violence perpetrated by the Applicant. There is no evidence that he has suffered any physical or emotional trauma arising from that conduct. 7. The Tribunal accepts that it would be in the best interests of his minor stepchild for the visa cancellation decision to be revoked. This is given significant weight in the Applicant's favour, although the weight afforded to this consideration is moderated due to the fact that the child was exposed to family violence perpetrated by the Applicant. 8. The Tribunal has had regard to the best interests of the Applicant's minor nieces and nephews. He has advised that he has two nieces, aged 6 and 4 and one nephew aged 11 who would be impacted by the decision. These children live with the Applicant's sister. There is no other information before the Tribunal regarding these children. The Applicant also told the Tribunal he has had contact with his brother's children, though those children are currently in State care. There is no other information before the Tribunal on the individual circumstances of these children, but the Tribunal accepts that it would be in their best interests for the cancellation decision to be revoked.

1. The Tribunal considers that it would be in the best interests of the Applicant's minor daughter and stepson to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation. The Tribunal also considers a revocation decision would be in the best interests of the Applicant's minor nieces and nephews.
2. The Tribunal has moderated the weight attributed to this primary consideration as the Applicant's stepson was present during an episode of family violence.
3. Overall, this primary consideration weighs in favour of revoking the mandatory cancellation decision. It is afforded significant weight despite the presence of the negative factors identified above. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the Applicant's partner that the children miss their father greatly and would be devastated if his visa was not restored.
4. The Tribunal considers however that the weight afforded to primary consideration one outweighs the weight afforded to this primary consideration. That is because of the very serious nature of the Applicant's repeated violent offending, and the risk he poses to the Australian community should he reoffend.

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.'[166]
3. The Applicant's most recent offending was a serious violent offence committed against a homeless man. The Applicant has also been convicted of acts of family violence. Paragraph 8.5(2) provides that non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of a visa may be appropriate simply because of the nature of the character concerns. The Applicant has raised serious character concerns through his violent offending against a vulnerable member of the community and his acts of family violence. On this basis, the Australian community would expect that the Applicant should not be permitted to remain in Australia.
4. The community's expectations apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community. The Applicant has engaged in serious conduct in breach of Australian laws which commenced with his serious violent offending at the service station in 2019. The Applicant's visa was cancelled following this incident but restored to him in 2020.[167] He went on to commit acts of family violence and a serious violent offence against someone who was homeless. He has been afforded the benefit of suspended sentences in the past but continued to breach them. The Applicant's actions demonstrate a disregard for Australian laws.

1. This primary consideration weighs very heavily against revoking the mandatory cancellation decision. It is given very heavy weight because of the nature of the Applicant's offending being serious violent offending against a vulnerable member of the Australian community, and his acts of family violence.

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. This other consideration then considers non-citizens who are covered by a protection finding (as defined in s 197C of the Act), and those who are not.
2. Paragraph 9.1.2(1) of Direction 110 provides that claims which may give rise to international non-refoulement obligations can be raised by a non-citizen who is not covered by a protection finding. The Direction provides that where such claims are raised, they must be considered.
3. The Applicant is not covered by a protection finding. He has not raised any claims for consideration. He was born in Liberia and fled to a refugee camp in Ghana due to the civil war in his home country.[168] He wrote in his Personal Circumstances form that he doesn't feel it would be safe for him to return because of violence and his poor background.[169] He said he hasn't been back to Liberia for nearly 19 years and doesn't have any family ties there and doesn't know anything about Liberia.[170]
4. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant was granted a refugee visa but there is no information or evidence before the Tribunal to suggest he was at risk of harm at the time the visa was granted. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant's mother resides in Liberia but notes his submissions that she can't afford basic and essential needs herself, let alone support the Applicant.[171] To the extent that claims of poverty or civil war are raised, the Tribunal has considered those claims may give rise to non-refoulement obligations. However, the Tribunal considers that it is appropriate to defer consideration of these obligations on the basis that it is open to him to apply for a protection visa.[172] The Tribunal considers it appropriate to defer consideration on the basis that those claims can be fully considered during the protection visa process.
5. The Tribunal has had regard to the other legal consequences of the decision. If the Applicant's visa cancellation is not revoked, the Applicant would be liable for removal from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable. Until that occurs, the Applicant would be subject to detention. The Applicant is currently in prison undergoing his sentence. The available information appears to suggest the Applicant would be eligible for parole on 6 April 2026 at the earliest.[173] The Tribunal accepts that if the Applicant is granted parole at that time, and his visa cancellation is not revoked, he would be liable to be detained pending his removal from Australia.
6. The Tribunal finds that these are the intended legal consequences of a non-revocation decision. Although they are the intended legal consequences, the Tribunal accepts that this would negatively impact the Applicant. On balance, this other consideration is given moderate weight in the Applicant's favour given the effect of a non-revocation decision on the Applicant's migration status. However, the Tribunal has decided that the weight attributed to primary consideration one outweighs the weight attributable to this other consideration. This is due to the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's offending and the risk to the Australian community should he reoffend.

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 28 years old and suffers from depression and anxiety for which he receives medication.[174] He told the Tribunal the medication has been assisting him function better. He has also received counselling whilst in prison which he also found beneficial.
4. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that he is impacted by any other health conditions. The Applicant has been employed during his time in Australia and reported gaining qualifications at TAFE in carpentry and painting. The Applicant has some transferable skills that could assist him in obtaining employment in his home country. In addition, the Applicant's mother resides in Liberia, though the Tribunal has accepted the Applicant's submissions that she would not be in a position to support him financially.
5. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant has lived in Australia since he was 10 years old and has not returned to Liberia for 18 years. The Tribunal also notes that there would be no language barriers, though it is accepted he would face some cultural barriers. The Applicant would have access to the same social, medical and/or economic support available to him as other citizens of that country, though it is accepted it would not be the same standard as to what the Applicant is accustomed to in Australia. It is also accepted that the Applicant would have emotional hardship in being separated from his family. He would also likely face some initial practical and financial difficulties in establishing himself in his home country where it is accepted he has not lived since he was a child.
6. This other consideration weighs in favour of revocation. It is given significant weight given the Applicant's personal circumstances. Despite this finding, the Tribunal has decided that the weight attributed to primary consideration one outweighs the weight attributable to this other consideration given the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct and the risk to the Australian community should he reoffend.

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. There are no known impacts on Australian business interests to consider under this other consideration, nor has the Applicant raised any. This other consideration is afforded neutral weight.

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 cancellation decision.[175]
3. In this case, the Tribunal has attributed very heavy weight against revocation of the mandatory cancellation decision to primary considerations one, two and five. The nature and seriousness of the Applicant's violent offending, his family violence offending, and the fact he reoffended after a formal warning are factors that weigh very heavily against him.
4. The Tribunal has attributed significant weight in the Applicant's favour to primary considerations three and four. The Tribunal has also afforded moderate weight to other consideration one and significant weight in the Applicant's favour to other consideration two. The Tribunal has had regard to the Applicant's close ties to his immediate family members in Australia including his partner, children, parents and siblings. It is accepted that it would be in the best interests of his minor children for the mandatory cancellation decision to be revoked. The Tribunal has also had regard to the legal consequences of a non-revocation decision and the fact that the Applicant has not returned to his home country for some 18 years. Those factors are in his favour.
5. The Tribunal has attributed greater weight to primary consideration one given the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's violent offending and the risk of reoffending[176]
6. The Tribunal has also had regard to the principles at paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110. The Tribunal notes that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government, and that non-citizens who have engaged in serious conduct should expect to be denied the privilege of coming to or forfeit the privilege of staying in Australia.[177]
7. The Tribunal has noted the principle that Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age.[178] Against this however is the very serious nature of the Applicant's offending. The Applicant's crimes in Australia have been violent, repeated, and escalated in seriousness. He has reoffended after being issued with a formal warning. He has breached multiple suspended sentence orders. He has been provided with multiple opportunities to reform but failed to avail himself of those chances. He has committed repeated acts of family violence, and the Tribunal has noted the inherent seriousness of such conduct.[179]
8. The Applicant does have minor children in Australia. His family also reside here. He has lived in Australia since the age of 10. Significant weight has been attributed to those factors. However, the Tribunal considers that this is a case where the nature of the non-citizen's conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations are insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa or revoking a mandatory cancellation.[180]
9. Having considered the primary and other considerations relevant to the Applicant's case, the Tribunal is not satisfied there is another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa.

1. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

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

[153] Ibid 765 and Exhibit A2 (noting the letters are almost identical in content).

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

[172] Plaintiff M1 (2022) 275 CLR 582 [30].

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