1. In the Applicant's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions,[7] there appears, in tabulated format, a neat summary of the Applicant's offending.[8] It is worth reproducing that template here:

Possession of knife in a public place or a school (on 17/09/2021)

Contravene direction or requirement (on 17/09/2021)

Evasion offence Type 1 Vehicle related offence (on 22/08/2021)

Attempted robbery whilst armed/ in company/ wounded/ used personal violence (on 28/12/2021)

Sentenced Imprisonment: 9 months (to be served concurrently)

Sentenced Imprisonment: 4 months (suspended for 12 months)

1. I will make specific reference to the sentence imposed on the Applicant in February 2022 which is the second entry in the above table. It will be noted that the Applicant's sentence contained a reference to there being 'no conviction recorded.' I approach this particular sentence with some caution. This caution derives from whether this sentence can be taken into account by this Tribunal having regard to s 12 of the Penalties and Sentences Act (Qld) 1992 ('P&S Act'). Section 12(1) of the P&S Act facilitates a discretion in a sentencing Court to record or not record a conviction. Section 12(3)(a) of the P&S Act provides that 'a conviction without recording the conviction is taken not to be a conviction for any purpose.' However, s 12(3A) of the P&S Act provides that:

'(3A) Despite sub-section [12] (3)(b), the conviction may be entered in a record kept by a department, a prosecuting authority or the offender's legal representative if it is necessary for the legitimate performance of the department, prosecuting authority or legal representative.'

1. I am satisfied that (1) the reference in s 12(3A) of the P&S Act to 'a record kept' relates to the file created and maintained in relation to the instant matter by the Respondent Minister; and (2) the reference to 'a department' in s 12(3A) P&S Act relates to the Respondent Minister's Department which made the decision under review.
2. Section 12(4) of the P&S Act provides that 'a conviction without the recording of a conviction - does not stop a Court from making any other order that it may make under this or another Act because of the conviction.' I am satisfied that (1) the reference in s 12(4) of the P&S Act to 'a Court' safely includes this Tribunal; (2) the reference in s 12(4) of the P&S Act 'making any other order' refers to the determination of the instant application by this Tribunal; and (3) the reference in s 12(4) of the P&S Act to 'or another Act' safely includes the Act.[9]
3. It follows that this Tribunal is entitled to take into account the fact of this particular conviction in February 2022 on the basis of '...the acceptance of the record and the plea upon which [these convictions were] based, together with such facts and circumstances as are necessary to provide an understanding of the offence, so far as they are relevant to the question before the AAT...'[10]

1. However, out of an over-abundance of caution, and with all possible fairness extended to this Applicant, I will not, for present purposes, have regard to his conviction in February 2022 given the appearance of a "no conviction recorded" notation in the sentencing narrative.

1. This means the Applicant's offending history is one that, in sentencing terms, runs from October 2021 until March 2023. It involves the commission of six offences dealt with at three sentencing hearings. It attracted the imposition of $1,000 in fines, and almost seven and a half years of head custodial time. It also involved the disqualification of the Applicant's driving privileges for a period of two years. To this list of convicted offences should be added the most recent sentence of imprisonment in September 2025 which does not appear in the "Check Results Report" that appears to have been printed on 10 April 2024.[11] However, the material does contain details of the Applicant's affray conduct committed in April 2025. It contains a transcript of the sentencing hearing that occurred in September 2025 where a local (Brisbane) Magistrate's Court dealt with the Applicant. There is also reference to conviction details as well as a "Queensland Person History" which records this conviction for affray as part of the Applicant's overall criminal history.[12]

1. Section 4(1) of the Act provides: 'The object of this Act is to regulate, in the national interest, the coming into, and presence in, Australia of non-citizens.' In terms of how the object of the Act is brought into practical effect, s 4 contains the following relevant provisions:

'(2) To advance its object, this Act provides for visas permitting non-citizens to enter or remain in Australia and the Parliament intends that this Act be the only source of the right of non-citizens to so enter or remain.

(4) To advance its object, this Act provides for the removal or deportation from Australia of non-citizens whose presence in Australia is not permitted by this Act.'

1. Section 29 of the Act provides that the Minister may grant a non-citizen permission, to be known as a visa, to travel to and enter Australia, and/or remain in Australia. Pursuant to s 13 of the Act, a person who holds a visa is a lawful non-citizen. It follows that a person who does not hold a visa is, pursuant to s 14 of the Act, an unlawful non-citizen.
2. Until his release from detention in or about 6 November 2024 pursuant to NZYQ, the Applicant was an unlawful non-citizen and had thus been held in immigration detention pursuant to section 189 of the Act. If the Applicant is not granted the visa he seeks, his capacity to remain in Australia will presumably depend on him being granted a renewed bridging visa. If he is not successful in the instant proceeding and the Respondent does not grant him a further bridging (or other) visa, he will be presumably liable to removal from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable.
3. Section 45 of the Act facilitates applications for visas. Section 46 of the Act stipulates the criteria for a valid visa application. Schedule 1 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) ('Regulations') sets out the specific ways in which a non-citizen applies for a visa of a given class[13]. Section 47 of the Act provides that the Minister must consider a valid application for a visa[14] and must not consider an application that is not a valid application.
4. Section 65 of the Act provides that after considering a valid application for a visa, if the Minister is satisfied that:

(a) the health criteria (if any) for the grant of the visa have been satisfied; and > > (b) the other criteria for the grant of the visa have been satisfied; and > > (c) the grant of the visa is not prevented by other sections of the Act; and > > (d) any visa application charge payable has been paid,

- the Minister is to grant the visa.[15] If not so satisfied, the Minister is to refuse to grant the visa[16].

1. If the Minister is minded to grant a visa, s 30 of the Act allows for the granting of both permanent and temporary visas. Section 31 of the Act further provides for specific classes within the respective categories of permanent and temporary visas. The specific classes of visas are also capable of prescription by regulations enabled by the Act.
2. With specific reference to protection visas, s 35A of the Act provides for two specific classes of such visas. They comprise (1) "permanent protection visas" pursuant to s 35A(2) of the Act and (2) "temporary protection visas" pursuant to s 35A(3) of the Act.
3. The grant of a protection visa requires an applicant to meet certain criteria. They are contained in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
4. Subsection 36(2) of section 36 of the Act relevantly provides:[17]

'A criterion for a Protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is: > > a) a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or > > (aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; > > ...'

5. Given the language of these respective subsections to s 36(2) of the Act, I will refer to the specific criteria in s 36(2)(a) of the Act as the 'Refugee' criteria. I will refer to the specific criteria in s 36(2)(aa) of the Act as the 'Complementary Protection' criteria.

What are the most relevant provisions for present purposes?

1. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 23. Most relevantly for present purposes is the criterion for the grant of a protection visa stipulated in s 36(1C)(b) of the Act. It provides:

'A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant is not a person whom the Minister considers, on reasonable grounds:

(b) having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, is a danger to the Australian community.'

1. Section 36(2C)(b) largely mirrors s 36(1C), and relevantly provides:

'A non-citizen is taken not to satisfy the criterion mentioned in paragraph (2)(aa) if: > > ... > > (b) the Minister considers, on reasonable grounds, that: > > ... > > (ii) the non-citizen, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, is a danger to the Australian community (including a crime that consists of the commission of a serious Australian offence or serious foreign offence), is a danger to the Australian community.' > > [My emphasis].

What constitutes a 'particularly serious crime'?

1. To determine whether an offence constitutes a 'a particularly serious crime' for the purposes of ss 36(1C)(b) and 36(2C)(b), s 5M of the Act provides:

For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, paragraph 36(1C)(b) has effect as if a reference in that paragraph to a particularly serious crime included a reference to a crime that consists of the commission of: > > (a) "a serious Australian offence"; or > > (b) "a serious foreign offence".'

2. The Respondent does not contend that the Applicant has committed a serious foreign offence. There is no reference to the commission of any such offence in the material presently before the Tribunal.
3. For an understanding of what constitutes a "serious Australian offence", reference must be had to s 5 of the Act which relevantly provides:

'serious Australian offence means an offence against a law in force in Australia, where:

(a) the offence:

(i) involves violence against a person; or

(ii) is a serious drug offence; or

(iii) involves serious damage to property; or

(iv) is an offence against section 197A or 197B (offences relating to immigration detention); and

(b) the offence is punishable by:

(i) imprisonment for life; or

(ii) imprisonment for a fixed term of not less than 3 years; or

(iii) imprisonment for a maximum term of not less than 3 years.'

Assessing whether a person is a 'danger to the Australian community.'

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 about the performance of those functions[18] or the exercise of those powers.[19]
2. Section 499(2A) of the Act provides that a person or body having functions or powers under the Act must comply with a direction issued pursuant to s 499(1) of the Act. For present purposes, the relevant direction dates from 6 September 2017 at which time the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[20] issued Ministerial Direction 75 - Refusal of Protection visas relying on ss 36(1C) and 36(2C)(b) ('Direction 75' or 'MD 75'). It governs delegates of the Respondent Minister in the process of considering valid applications for Protection visas under section 47 of the Act and in the performance of their functions or the exercise of their powers pursuant to s 65 of the Act to grant or refuse to grant Protection visas.
3. In determining whether a person constitutes a danger to the community of Australia guidance is found in the decision of a past Deputy President of this Tribunal in WKCG v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] AATA 512 ('WKCG'). In that decision, Deputy President Tamberlin QC established a multi-component test for assessing whether a person constitutes a danger to the Australian community. The components of that test compel the following assessments:

(1) the seriousness and nature of the crimes committed, the length of the sentences imposed, and any mitigating or aggravating circumstances;

(2) the criminal record in totality - including the extent and nature of any prior convictions and the period over which they took place;

(3) the risk of re-offending and recidivism and the likelihood of re-lapsing into crime; and

(4) any prospects of rehabilitation.[21]

1. In WKCG, Deputy President Tamberlin QC explained that whether a person is a danger to the Australian community is a question of fact and degree.[22] The learned Deputy President said the task for the Tribunal in answering this second question in s 36(1C)(b) is as follows:

'The risk of re-offending and recidivism and the likelihood of relapsing into crime is a primary consideration. The criminal record must be looked at as a whole and prospects of rehabilitation assessed. The assessment to be made goes to the future conduct of the person and this involves a consideration of character and the possibility or probability of any threat, which could be posed to a member or members of the Australian community.'

1. In DOB18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 63 ("DOB18"), Logan J explained that for s 36(1C)(b) to be made out, the Tribunal has to be satisfied that the Applicant 'is and will into the indefinite future be a danger, not that the person once was a danger.'[23] Logan J further explained that danger 'means present and serious risk.'[24] Beyond the factors identified in WKCG, I must also have regard to all substantial, clearly articulated and relevant contentions propounded by the parties[25].

The principles in Direction 75[26]

1. In considering an application for a protection visa, Direction 75 compels delegates to consider (1) whether an applicant meets the Refugee criteria in s 36(2)(a) of the Act; and (2) the Complementary Protection criteria in s 36(2)(aa) of the Act before considering the disqualifying criteria in ss 36(1C) and s 36(2C) of the Act or considering refusal on character grounds under s 501 of the Act.
2. Direction 75 can be differentiated from other directions such as Ministerial Direction 110 because it (Direction 75) does not bind the Tribunal for the purposes of merits review. Additionally, directions made pursuant to s 499 of the Act do not personally bind the Respondent. Therefore, the operative effect of Direction 75 does not extend to compelling this Tribunal to undertake its own assessment of whether this Applicant meets the Refugee criteria or the Complementary Protection criteria as a necessary precursor to considering the extent to which the disqualifying criteria in ss 36(1C) and 36(2C) apply to this Applicant.[27]
3. It seems clear from the decision under review that the delegate acted in accordance with Direction 75 and made the necessary assessment about whether the Applicant met the Refugee Criteria and the Complementary Protection criteria prior to considering the relevant disqualifying criteria located in ss 36(1C) and 36(2C) of the Act. In terms of the first part of the delegate's analysis, the delegate was obviously aware the Applicant had received refugee status on 9 April 2013 by virtue of him being granted a Refugee (Class XB) (Subclass 200) visa. The delegate was "...not satisfied that the applicant is an Ethiopian national. There is no information before me to suggest that he holds any other nationality."[28] It can therefore be accepted that the delegate thought the Applicant satisfied the Refugee Criteria in s 36(2)(a) of the Act.
4. There was a similarly favourable finding that the Applicant met the complementary protection criterion appearing in s 36(2)(aa) of the Act. The delegate concluded "...there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of [the Applicant] being removed from Australia to Eritrea, there is a real risk the applicant will suffer significant harm."[29] The delegate considered whether there were any other provisions preventing the criterion in s 36(2)(aa) from being satisfied but did not make any finding displacing such satisfaction of s 36(2)(aa).[30]
5. In their respective submissions, neither party cavilled with the delegate's position in relation to either s 36(2)(a) or s 36(2)(aa) of the Act. Therefore, I will not predicate my findings about s 36(1C) of the Act on the basis of whether or not the Applicant satisfies the relevant criteria attaching to either of these elements.

1. The enactment of s 36(1C) of the Act represented the legislative codification of Article 33(2) of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. This Convention was adopted in 1951 and was, in turn, amended in 1967 by the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees ('Refugees Convention').
2. The relevant components of Article 33 of the Refugees Convention comprise, firstly, Article 33(1) which says:

'No Contracting State shall expel or return ("refouler") a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.'

1. And, secondly, Article 33(2) of the Refugees Convention which places limits on the extent to which a refugee can avail himself/herself of the grounds stipulated in Article 33(1):

'The benefit of the present provision may not, however, be claimed by a refugee whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of the country in which he is, or who, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that country.'

1. At the time of the tabling of s 36(1C) before the Parliament, the relevant Explanatory Memorandum to the amendment intended by the introduction of this section said the following:

'The Government intends the codification of Article 33(2) of the Refugees Convention, which operates as an exception to the prohibition against refoulement_, to make it clear that it is both appropriate and desirable for decision makers to consider this concept as part of the criteria for a protection visa. The statutory implementation of Article 33(2) of the Refugees Convention is through the new subsection 36(1C). Where a person is found to meet the definition of 'refugee' but does not meet the criterion under subsection 36(1C) they will be ineligible for grant of a Protection visa. This criterion is consistent with the ineligibility criteria under paragraph 36(2C)(b) in relation to the complementary protection provisions in the Migration Act.'[31]_

1. The then-Minister's Explanatory Statement noted that the introduction of s 36(1C) into the Act, created: '...a new, independent and self-contained statutory framework which articulates Australia's interpretation of its protection obligations under the Refugees Convention.'[32] The net effect of s 36(1C) is thus to replace the previous methodology of how a person was determined to be a refugee. Previously, such a determination was made by reference to the Refugees Convention. After the introduction of s 36(1C), that determination was able to be made without reliance on the Refugees Convention or any external interpretations of it.
2. The language appearing in, respectively, Articles 33(1) and (2) of the Refugees Convention requires a two-step determinative process when addressing the question of whether someone could be found to be a refugee. First, there had to be a determination of whether a person 'has been convicted by final judgment of a particularly serious crime'. If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, a second determination must then be made about whether that person constitutes a danger to the community. An identical two-step approach now appears in s 36(1C) in the determination of whether a person is excluded from the grant of a protection visa.

1. The Applicant has, as best as I understood the material, provided five statements. I will go through each statement in turn.

1. This statement was made in support of an application for a protection visa which culminated in the decision under review on 6 November 2024. Specifically, the Applicant was responding to a request from the Respondent's Department for information about his criminal history. In this statement, he confirms he has been sentenced to "...over 5 years in prison. I have a bad criminal history which I am not proud of."[33] He spoke of taking full responsibility and expressing deep regret for his offending as its resulting harm. He said "I am truly sorry. I have guilt about what I did to someone that I didn't know."[34] He says "I won't re-offend in future. I know some people would think its impossible I won't offend again based on what I've done but that's not true."[35] He talks about having changed the way he thinks and of continuing to change his life. In particular, he said "I care about my life and want to stay in the community with my family."[36]
2. He described his descent into a pattern of very serious offending in these terms:

"I'm 21 years old now. I started offending when I was about 18 years old. It felt like a time in my life when I was acting out. It started by hanging around with the wrong crowd and being involved in the party life. I was taking drugs, Xanax and weed, and was being encouraged to do stupid things. The bad parts of my offending happened when I was in groups of people. I'm not saying this because it was someone else's fault, my actions were my own responsibility, but I now see what was influencing me and the way I thought."[37]

1. The Applicant now purports to understand that associating with anti-social peers was not "...healthy or good for me to be around. I haven't kept in contact with those people or spoken to them since I was locked up and I don't intend to speak to them if I get out."[38] In this statement, the Applicant says that if returned to the community, he will reside with either his parents in the suburb of Inala (Brisbane) or with his sister who lives in Moorooka (Brisbane). He refers to the health issues afflicting his parents and, in particular, refers to his mother's hearing and sight issues as well as the leg and mobility issues affecting his father.

1. Prior to his incarceration, he speaks of having assisted in caring for his parents and that this caring task was split between himself and his sister.[39] In this first statement, the Applicant also talks about returning to TAFE "...and do an engineering course. I already have a Certificate II in automotive engineering and want a Certificate III so I can get a job as a mechanic."[40] He says he is motivated to improve his skill base and qualifications as a means of finding better employment: "Anything I can do to get skills and experience would be good for my future. That is where my head is at now."[41]

1. In terms of rehabilitation, the Applicant says (in this chronologically first of five statements in the material):

"My lawyer has talked to me about doing some courses if I get out too. He's told me about some men's behaviour change courses and things like counselling to help me change the way I think in certain situations. The courses are a way for me to change and grow which I am okay with and want to do. This type of thing is important for me because throughout my journey, I made mistakes and I regret them. The path I chose was no good but I want to change. I want to be supportive to my family.

I simply want to have a good life for me and my family.

I don't want to do any more harm to people. ..."[42]

1. This second statement comprised the Applicant's response to a request[43] from the Respondent's Department for further particulars about his offending, including certain alleged incidents while the Applicant was in prison. With reference to his actual commission of the offences, the Applicant expressed shame about what he had done. He admitted that at an earlier interview in the process of his protection visa application, "I did not mean to avoid responsibility for what I had done but I get that I didn't face up to things at interview fully."[44]
2. The Department sought specific responses from the Applicant about the incident (on 22 February 2022) leading to the stabbing of a victim. In particular, the Department was interested in the inconsistency between (1) the Applicant telling them during the interview that he "got attacked first" and that otherwise he was trying to protect himself; and (2) what appeared in the relevant sentencing remarks which noted the Applicant had a knife, that he was wearing a hood and mask which disguised his appearance, that he (and his co-offender) were intending to rob their victim of the mobile phones he (the victim) was attempting to sell and that when the victim chased the co-offender (who had the phones) he (the Applicant) pushed the victim to the ground, punching and kicking him and inflicting multiple knife wounds. In response to the inconsistency raised by the Department, the Applicant said the following in this second statement:

"Looking at the request for comment that was written by the Department and what is written there, I was trying to say that... I didn't go hoping to stab someone or hurt them. If no one had been hurt of course that would have been better. But I went with a knife and I knew there was a possibility of using it. There was a problem and things were confusing, but I stabbed that man. It was no one's decision but mine to do that.

He didn't attack me first and I shouldn't have said that. Things didn't go to plan and he resisted when we tried to rob him. We were the ones who started the problems."[45]

1. In its request for further information, the Department wanted the Applicant's response about his reported affiliation with a local criminal gang and whether he would engage in physical assaults whenever he came into contact with a person having an association with a rival gang. The Applicant responded in these terms:

"The Department has asked me about my time in prison and asked me about being connected with some gangs there. I want to be clear I have never been a part of any gang and I will try to provide what information I can so people can understand what it was like in prison.

The Southside Drillers and Swish Bound Gorillas are two gangs in prison. I knew people in the Southside Drillers from when I was in Brisbane, before I went to prison, and are friends with some of them. We would hang out sometimes in prison. You have to pass time with people and some of them were my friends. I would also hang out with people from the Swish Bound Gorillas. They had no problems with me because I didn't choose a side. I am not part of either gang and if you were a part of one gang, you wouldn't hang out with people from the other.

I didn't have problems with people because of any gang relations or anything like that, but I did have problems with individuals while I was in prison. In one unit you will have 50 or 10- people. Not everyone gets along and no matter what there will be problems between people. That place is full of people who have done bad things, people who were murderers and done dark things. I know what I did was bad too, but it is dangerous if you don't stand up for yourself in certain circumstances."[46]

1. Further in this request for further information, the Department wanted further detail and/or clarified responses about four specific incidents during the Applicant's time in criminal custody. Those incidents were expressed by the Department in these terms:

"It is further noted that Queensland Correction Services recorded the following specific alleged incidents during your time in prison:

- 7 March 2023: Perpetrator - Assault (Prisoner on Prisoner)

You and another prisoner were involved in a physical altercation in the medical holding room. The other prisoner was identified as associated with the Switch Bound Gorillas, a street gang which is a rival gang of the Southside Drillers

- 11 October 2022: Perpetrator - Assault (Prisoner on Prisoner)

You were located with blood on your face and lip, and it was noted that another prisoner, who was a member of the Switch Bound Gorillas, had been given a jumper to cover a ripped and bloodied shirt.

- 8 October 2022 Perpetrator - Assault (Prisoner on Prisoner)

After a prisoner challenged another prisoner to a fight, you stepped up to engage the prisoner in a fight. You had been transferred into that unit on the day of the fight.

- 2 September 2022 Perpetrator - Assault (Prisoner on Prisoner)

You approached the officer's station with visible injuries, and stated you had fallen from gym equipment. A review of CCTV footage identified you and another prisoner, and it was determined that you were both the perpetrators of an incident, with the cause of the assault not identified."[47]

1. In response, the Applicant noted the following in this second statement:

"I remember the first incident the Department has asked me about, when I said I was injured at the gym. There was an inmate there that really didn't like me. He would say bad things to me every single time he saw me. For a long time, I let that pass then eventually I said something back to him, it was something like the insults he kept saying at me. I wasn't meaning to start a fight when I said something

back to him but he attacked me and I fought back. He was maybe in his thirties and I came out much worse from it than he did.

The second incident, from October 2022, though I can't remember the exact date, was with someone I usually got a long with. He was coming down from drugs and was very aggressive towards someone else. I grabbed his shirt to try to stop him from starting a fight but he didn't like that. He and I ended up getting in a fight instead.

On 11 October, again, I don't remember the exact date things occurred, was a fight between me and another prisoner. He and I knew each other and for some reason, I don't recall exactly, there was an argument and a fight between us. We apologised to each other after but I think they moved him to a different unit.

On 7 March 2023, I was scheduled to go to court that day. I was taken to do a medical check and while I was in the waiting room someone confronted me. I'm not sure what happened but I think he thought I was someone else. He took off his shirt and attacked me. I didn't even fight back, I just covered my face with my hands."[48]

1. This third statement was prepared for the purposes of "...provide[ing] information to the Administrative Review Tribunal about my circumstances."[49] In this third statement, the Applicant respectfully disagrees with the findings appearing in the decision under review that he represents a danger to the Australian community. He accepts that "The consequences for [sic] my actions were extremely serious."[50] He reflects on his time in immigration detention[51] and described it as "...relatively uneventful."[52] Since his release from immigration detention, the Applicant said he mostly stayed home and spent time with his family. In terms of social activity, he said "When I'm in Brisbane, I generally don't go out. If I do, it is mostly to take my brother's or younger family members out to eat."[53]
2. He described his circle as comprising his friend, Mr E, who is located in Emerald as well as a cousin in his local suburb of Inala. He described these contacts as "Both are good people. I'm very close with my sister too, she and I are like best friends."[54] In this statement, the Applicant claims to have severed any previous ties with negative peers saying "I want to stay away from them and focus on me."[55] He refers to his family around him as being a positive influence: "My family and I have spoken about the time I spent away. They want to make sure I haven't made the same mistakes I did before. They keep an eye on me. Whatever choices I make they look at it and make sure it's the right choice for me. They are really supportive of me and what I'm doing."[56]
3. With reference to employment, the Applicant talks about it being "...important for me to get a job when I get home. ... I looked for jobs around Brisbane but there was nothing there that fit."[57] He appears to have found employment in central Queensland:

"Eventually I got a job in Emerald, Queensland, about an hour's flight from Brisbane. I work for a company called [name of business redacted], working in their shop. They are [sic] big company and have a few stores in different places in Queensland. I started working there about four weeks ago, in February 2025.[58] Its full time. I mostly do car detailing and odd jobs around the business. I'm wanting to sign up for mechanical training. All the spots for the training program are full this year around so I will likely start next year.

My friend, [the abovementioned Mr E], has been working there for a while. He and I were talking about the possibility of me getting a job there while I was in detention, and I called him when I got out. Once he spoke to his boss and I got an interview, the job didn't take long to organise.

He [Mr E] is doing his mechanic's apprenticeship through the company. He's about a year in and has four more years to go. This is the program I want to be involved in next year and I know from him and talking with my employer what the pathway is for this."[59]

1. This employment involved the Applicant working full-time, five days a week. In Emerald, the Applicant lived with Mr E and his father who have resided in Emerald for about two years. The Applicant has known Mr E for a number of years because they went to school together and first met in year 8. He says that when Mr E "...was young, he went to juvenile prison for a time as well, so he knows where I came from and what I'm trying to do. As an adult, he's not the same as he was younger. He's helping me change my life like he did."[60]
2. In terms of substance abuse, the Applicant claims to no longer abuse illicit drugs. He says that he and Mr E "...drink beer sometimes, but not always. Usually, it's a one-time thing per week to relax after working."[61] In terms of future goals and objectives, the Applicant talks about completing his qualifications as an automotive mechanic and one day opening his own mechanical repair business.
3. He does not think his offending was motivated by him abusing illicit drugs or alcohol. He attributes his past conduct to being "...young and foolish and didn't know better. I made bad decisions. It didn't come down to anyone other than me."[62] Despite this belief, the Applicant confirms he "...has done a few drug and alcohol courses and similar things while I was out of the community.[63] He says these courses "...helped and I'm also open to doing other courses too. I don't know exactly what they will do for me but if they help me work through problems or things like that then I'm okay with it."[64]
4. This third statement concludes with the Applicant commenting on the danger he thinks he now represents to the community:

"My visa was refused because people still think I'll reoffend or that I'm a danger to people. I'm not. The consequences for the stuff I did were really serious. There is no chance I would want to get back to it. I learned from my mistakes so I'm really looking forward to grow and be wiser and do things the right way. I don't want to go back where I was before."[65]

1. This fourth statement is intended as an update to the immediately preceding statement dated 20 March 2025. Things appear to have gone awry for the Applicant since that immediately preceding statement. Despite suggesting he had found a new and virtuous path in Emerald and despite suggesting he did not have a predisposition towards illicit substance use which, in turn, predisposed him towards unlawful conduct, this is what transpired:

"In late April 2025, I was arrested for breach of parole. I had taken cocaine and gave a positive drug test earlier that month. I was also drinking alcohol casually since I had been released from goal, both of which were in breach of my parole conditions.

Since April, I've been incarcerated and held in the Capricornia Correctional Centre in Queensland. I as [sic] incarcerated for breaching my parole conditions. During that time, I was also charged with Affray, which I plead guilty to. I received a suspended sentenced [sic] for 4 months imprisonment. The time I was held in prison was solely for the breach of parole. I admit what I did and didn't mean to hide from any of it.

The day I was involved in a fight, I was with my younger brother and some of his friends. My sister, [name redacted: hereinafter referred to as "Ms M"], asked me to go to the store with my younger brother to get some pictures printed. I was not hanging out with the people I used to socialise with, who were mixed up with bad behaviour. I still have no intention to do that. Someone approached us and made trouble with my younger brother, a fight started and I felt I had to step in. It was my choice, and I have to think about what I could do differently next time. I may have to pull people out of a fight or do everything I can to avoid conflict in the future. It was a difficult situation, and I made the wrong choice. I feel bad for what I did in that fight. Nothing about that was good and I'm sorry for it.

I applied for parole after I plead guilty and the application was accepted. On Friday, 9 October 2025, I was released again and am now home with my sister, Ms M, in Brisbane. I didn't know until the day I was released if I was going to be sent home or taken to immigration detention and kept there."[66]

1. He accepts that his arrest in April 2025 ended his employment with the business in Emerald. That employment lasted for barely a month. He accepts;

"My job at [the Emerald business] probably won't be open to me anymore. When I was arrested in April 2025, I was at work, so I think my employers won't view that well. I will keep looking though and would like to get a job as a mechanic and start an apprenticeship. That is still my long-term goal."[67]

1. The Applicant attributes his return to, first, illicit drug and alcohol abuse to "I was going through some pressure and I felt like I slipped up and tried to calm myself in the wrong way. ...I need to find different ways to deal with stress I [sic] the future I spent six months in prison and all the work I did was thrown away."[68] In this statement, the Applicant says "I've stopped drinking now and will stay away from drugs completely. This is a condition of my parole. Even using prescription drugs, I have to get them approved by my parole officer before I use them."[69] Second, he also appears to attribute his past conduct to the influence of negative peers: "I've had problems in the past because some of the people in my community who are held up as role models, aren't people I relate to or who I feel understand me."[70]
2. Despite taking a position in the immediately preceding statement of not thinking he needed any treatment for illicit substance and alcohol abuse, in this statement the Applicant makes some reference to an engagement with rehabilitation. On any reasonable view, that engagement is clearly in its formative stages and is otherwise a work in progress:

"After November 2024, I was doing some counselling with someone named Ted Noffs and a group called Headspace. I did a few sessions before concentrating on my work and setting up a life in Emerald, so that didn't continue for long. Recently, I spoke with my parole officer in Brisbane to see what supports can be put in place. Next week on Wednesday I have my first appointment with a counsellor and hopefully that turns into something helpful for me."[71]

1. With reference to the predictive exercise of whether he represents a danger to the Australian community, he talks about having to think about his past mistakes and how to avoid repeating them. He says he's "trying" to change his ways and needs "more help" in doing so: "...I have to think about the mistakes I made and figure out how to avoid repeating them. I need to change the way I think about some things. I haven't always made the right decisions but I'm trying. I guess that's why I'm open to asking for more help."[72]

1. This final and most recent statement primarily comprises "...a brief update on my circumstances and how I've been trying to access support services in the community."[73] The Applicant talks about his time in detention in 2024 and to having asked for a referral to a drug and alcohol service. Although he did not think he needed this service at that time, he was nevertheless open to the idea of at least some form of rehabilitation. He then refers to a "social worker at Refugee Legal" who referred him to "Hot House" in Brisbane. It is not clear from this statement about whether the Applicant actually engaged with this facility. In a similar vein, he says this social worker "...was looking at men's behaviour change programs as well."[74] The Applicant says he was told by this social worker that the "Hot House" drug and alcohol program as well as the behaviour change programs were only available to him outside immigration detention.
2. After his release from immigration detention (as an NZYQ releasee) in November 2024, he says "...I did a few counselling sessions but then moved to Emerald so connecting with the other services we had been looking at didn't go ahead."[75] He accepts that in Emerald, "...I made mistakes and things didn't go well. I'm not happy with that and it was a big disappointment. I let my anger take over me and I used drugs. I should have known better."[76]
3. Since his release from prison in October 2025, the Applicant says another social worker from Refugee Legal ("Nicky") has been involved in coordinating rehabilitative programs for him to attend. He says: "She and I [sic] trying to figure what supports I may want and what would work best for me."[77] Nicky arranged for a referral to the Brisbane Recovery Services Centre which is run by the Salvation Army. His involvement with this service goes no higher than "I understand Nicky sent that referral and we're still waiting to hear back."[78] In this statement the Applicant again refers to the Hot House drug and alcohol service as well as MensLine which is a counselling service. His involvement with both of these services goes no higher than "Both of these services require me to contact them, instead of a referral being sent on my behalf."[79]
4. The Applicant refers to certain counselling sessions with or through his parole officer. He says: "I'm still waiting for them to start the actual counselling sessions, but I spoke with my parole officer and they're going to connect me with the service I went to see when I was in Inala in November 2024."[80] The Applicant will remain on parole until April 2027. There are reporting conditions attaching to that parole which currently require him to check-in with his parole officer once a month. He adds; "I do drug tests as part of the reporting process. They've done it twice so far. ...It's a strict requirement [of parole] to stay off drugs and alcohol and honestly don't want to have my head in that space anyway."[81]
5. In terms of any engagement with rehabilitation beyond expiry of his parole, the Applicant says he: "Would be open to continuing with Ted [Noffs] after my parole ends. If these services are not available, I have the information about other services provided by Refugee Legal and can reach out to them."[82]

Oral evidence of the Applicant to the instant hearing

1. In addition to his abovementioned written evidence, the Applicant also provided oral evidence to the instant hearing. During cross-examination, he was taken through the circumstances of each incident of his offending with which he did not appear to cavil. He was also taken to the victim impact statement provided by the victim of the knife attack resulting in the Applicant's convictions imposed in March 2023. He readily accepted this attack resulted in significant physical and psychological harm to the victim.
2. The Applicant was also taken to the abovementioned incidents while he was in prison and again did not appear to cavil with either the circumstances of those incidents. In terms of his most recent conduct involving the affray at a local shopping centre, the Applicant claimed he simply went to that shopping centre with his 17 year old brother and one of his friends. While there, the Applicant said they were confronted by people he "thought" were members of the "Switch Gorillas" gang who then proceeded to attack them. The Applicant conceded he had consumed at least some alcohol on the day of that affray. He also conceded that in April 2025, he tested positive for cocaine in his system and that he had used cocaine before he went to Emerald to take up the job offer organised by his friend, Mr E.
3. The Applicant was then taken specific portions of a report from Queensland Corrective Services ("QCS") which made specific reference to the Applicant use of alcohol in circumstances where he knew (or ought reasonably to have known) that consuming alcohol was in breach of his parole conditions. In a QCS note dated 12 December 2024, it is recorded that: "Substance Abuse Risk Note: [the Applicant] reported that he consumed 4 cans of premixed drinks, stating that this was due to wanting to issue [sic] with falling asleep at night. He advised that he only drinks this in order to have head spins, to then fall asleep. This is contravention of condition(s). You must abstain from alcohol until otherwise issues a direction in relation to alcohol consumption by an authorised corrective services officer."[83] The Applicant could not provide any credible excuse or explanation for this notation.
4. He was then taken to another QCS note made on 30 January 2025 which relevantly notes: "Substance abuse risk note: [the Applicant] reported that he consumed 2-3 cans of premixed drinks last week, stating that was due to... wanting... to falling asleep at night. This is contravention of condition(s) You must abstain from alcohol until otherwise issued with a direction in relation to alcohol consumption by an authorised corrective services officer."[84] Again, the Applicant could not offer any excuse or explanation for this notation. Nor could he explain his earlier evidence that he did not consume alcohol in Emerald yet in one of his written statements (specifically, that of 20 March 2025) he speaks of occasionally consuming alcohol with Mr E while in Emerald.
5. The Applicant was then taken to a further portion of this QCS notation made on 30 January 2025 in which it is noted: "[The Applicant] presented with propensity for significant violence as demonstrate [sic] in his index offending. Of concern, is that [the Applicant] continuously resorted to alcohol as a coping mechanism. ..."[85] Again, he had nothing substantive to say to now displace the observation appearing in this QCS notation. The Applicant was also cross-examined about the nature and extent of any engagement with rehabilitation but had little or nothing to displace a finding that his involvement with rehabilitation was either pending or otherwise a work in progress. His oral evidence about rehabilitation did not go much beyond, if at all, what appeared in his written statement reviewed earlier.

1. The Applicant's sister gave both written and oral evidence to this instant hearing. Her first statement was made on 31 May 2024 in support of his application for the subject visa. She says that before the Applicant went to prison, "...we used to work together to support our parents."[86] She refers to the closeness of her relationship with the Applicant and says that "He takes my advice and listens to me."[87] She says that when the Applicant committed the stabbing offence, he was ashamed and embarrassed to tell either her or the rest of the family about it. She adds that "Our family would not accept any more offending and it would affect us badly. Our mother in particular would suffer. He knows this."[88] She believes the Applicant "...is remorseful and regrets what he did. ...Our plan is that when he comes out, we can work together as before to support our parents."[89]
2. Of course, this albeit well-intended evidence was convincingly displaced by the Applicant's subsequent conduct involving a return to illicit substance and alcohol abuse, the breach of his bail conditions, the loss of this employment and his further incarceration for breaching parole and for further offending.
3. Her second written statement appears to have been made on 20 March 2025.[90] It was "...meant to provide information about what has occurred since my brother's release and his current situation."[91] She says the Applicant's relationship with her "...is different than with other people in our family, he and I are closer."[92] She refers to the Applicant telling her it was important for him to get a job and this statement was made contemporaneously with the Applicant securing employment in Emerald. She says the Applicant "...is only focussed on his job [in Emerald], his family and improving his life. He wants to educate himself and to support us and his parents. He and I have talked about this, and I know these things are important for him."[93]
4. In what can only now be seen as an ominous observation, she notes "We would prefer him to be closer to the family. This would help us keep an eye on him ..."[94] As things transpired, things went very awry for the Applicant insofar as his employment in Emerald was concerned. She accepted that during this period, he (1) resumed consumption of alcohol (contrary to his parole conditions), (2) he resumed consumption of illicit substances (contrary to his parole conditions) and (3) committed the affray conduct as a result of the melee at the local shopping centre. She observes that "My brother's mindset is different than what it was before he went to prison. I can see the changes in his attitude and the way he makes decisions."[95] Subsequent conduct from the Applicant demonstrates just how misplaced Ms M's comments in the statement actually were.
5. Ms M says: "If I get the impression that he is starting to go down the wrong pathway again or that he is acting in a bad way, I will intervene. ...We would do our best to work through whatever problems came up."[96] Again, this purported vigilance did nothing to prevent the Applicant's subsequent conduct resulting in his conviction for affray, his return to alcohol and illicit drug consumption, the breach of his parole conditions and, ultimately, the loss of his employment in Emerald. The concluding portion of her statement (which is also the new paragraphs that were added to it)[97] contains the following observations:
   • she says that she and the family "...are talking a lot to him now... The more we can connect, the better our relationship is and the more we can be a positive influence for him."[98];
   • "He knows how important it is for us to have him with us. If he went back to prison, it would put us in a bad place again."[99];
   • "The impact on us emotionally and practically would be very difficult if he went back to prison."[100]; and
   • "I do not think [the Applicant] will offend again. I am very close with my brother and am happy with the decisions he is making."[101]
6. Ms M's third written statement was made on 17 October 2025. It was made "...to provide updated information to the Administrative Review Tribunal."[102] She described her circumstances as being mostly the same as at the time she provided her immediately preceding statement. She refers to the Applicant's arrest for breaching his parole conditions. She also confirms he was convicted for the melee at the shopping centre resulting in the charge of affray. Her very limited, or perhaps non-existent capacity to regulate his behaviour, can be seen in her frank admission in this third statement when she says "We didn't know the full reason he had been arrested and the extent of what had happened before. We knew some of it but not some of the worst parts."[103]
7. Since the Applicant's release from criminal custody in October last year, she says the Applicant has resided with her. She confirms "We don't have many plans for practical things just yet."[104] She is content for the Applicant to reside with her for as long as he wants. She also confirms being "...willing to do what is needed to help my brother. If he needs to be connected to counselling programs, drug and alcohol courses or other things, I will make sure he goes and provide[sic] the support he needs."[105]
8. Ms M also gave oral evidence to the instant hearing.[106] She confirmed her residential details as per her written statements and she also repeated the claimed closeness in the relationship between her and the Applicant. She also confirmed that the Applicant now resides with her and that prior to that, he resided with their parents. In terms of any preventive advice or sisterly counselling for the Applicant, the highest her oral evidence went was for her to say she had some telephone contact with him while he was in prison and during those telephone calls, she advised him not to repeat his conduct, which would see him returned to jail. She told the instant hearing that she has two sons aged nine and two years respectively. She said her children have a very good relationship with the Applicant, as does her husband who has only relatively recently arrived in Australia from Ethiopia. She also referred to the Applicant's relationship with his younger brothers as being very good. She spoke of having no tolerance for the Applicant using illicit substances in her home and that if she sees the Applicant so engaged with illicit drugs, she will do her best to stop him from doing so.
9. During cross-examination, Ms M was asked about what she knew of the Applicant's level of involvement in any rehabilitative process and her evidence appeared to be either very scant or otherwise unreliable on this issue. She had difficulty explaining precisely what type of rehabilitation he had engaged in or was due to engage in. She was asked about whether she knew anything of the Applicant's involvement in a criminal gang and said she knew nothing about it. She was taken to her statement made in March 2025 wherein she said the Applicant would not re-offend. She said she was "...totally surprised..." when he did re-offend in the following month of April 2025. She said she had little or no knowledge of the Applicant consuming alcohol in April 2025 (when he re-offended) or when he went to Emerald in the preceding month. She told the instant hearing that while she and the Applicant resided at their parents' house, she never saw the Applicant consume alcohol. She claimed to have only become aware of the Applicant's illicit drug use as a result of being told about it by lawyers acting for him. Likewise with the Applicant's use of cocaine at the time of the affray offence in April 2025, she claimed to have no knowledge he had taken cocaine at that time. She was similarly vague about the claimed rehabilitation sessions she was driving him to. Ms M:
   • could not name the rehabilitative service provider;
   • could not recall or identify the locality of that service provider;
   • was uncertain about whether she was driving him to the relevant Parole Officer as part of his parole conditions or for purely rehabilitative purposes; and
   • vaguely recalled she was taking him to his "Parole Officer" and that he had told her "...this is for his supports."

1. As best as I understood the evidence, the Applicant's mother has provided two written statements. The first of them is dated 31 May 2024 and is addressed to the Respondent's Department. She refers to the Applicant's imprisonment for almost two years and says "It was his responsibility and his decision to do what he did."[107] She claims to have spoken regularly with the Applicant since his incarceration and says "It will not happen again and he will be supported if he is released."[108] She refers to the "...immense emotional burden..."[109] she has experienced as a result of the Applicant's unlawful conduct.
2. She says that both she and her husband are unwell. She says "...I am disabled, being blind, deaf, and unable to manage on my own. ...[the Applicant's] father has suffered the loss of the use of his legs and hands."[110] It can be reliably taken from her statement that the Applicant is required to be present in the lives of herself and their husband for the purpose of supporting them. In terms of any future prospect of the Applicant offending, she says "Should there be an opportunity for [the Applicant] to be released from immigration detention, I assure you that as his mother, I am willing to provide him with the care and guidance he needs."[111]
3. This evidence must be viewed in the context of the Applicant's later conduct which involved conduct comprising a return to illicit substance and alcohol abuse, the breach of his bail conditions, the loss of this employment and his further incarceration for breaching parole and for re-offending.
4. The second statement of the Applicant's mother is dated 9 January 2026 and was written for the purposes of the Applicant's instant hearing. In this statement, she says the Applicant's legal representative "...has spoken with me about his offending. This includes the offending which resulted in his first arrest and more recent fight that occurred in 2025. I am also aware of his drug use."[112] She claims to not be happy with what the Applicant has done and that it is ultimately the Applicant's "...choice to do these things and I hope he changes his ways."[113] As his mother, she says she loves and support the Applicant and that her family "...will help him to be the man that he should be."[114]
5. She is also aware that an adverse outcome from this instant proceeding could well result in the Applicant's permanent removal from Australia. She asks this Tribunal to grant the visa the Applicant now seeks and in terms of any future offending, she says "We will do everything we can to make sure this does not occur."[115] At the risk of repeating myself, the evidence of the Applicant's past conduct provides an all too familiar alternative outcome which has played out across 2024 and 2025.
6. The Applicant's mother also gave oral evidence to the instant hearing, during which she confirmed the difficulties with her personal health and the help she and her husband have received from their children. It should be borne in mind the Applicant's mother has significant hearing and visual impairments, but be that as it may, she appeared to be able to adequately respond to questions put to her. For example, she was able to confirm that following his arrest for the stabbing offence, the Applicant did not tell her about this conduct, nor the reason behind his commission of it. She otherwise confirmed that she has always urged the Applicant to behave well and to be a good person.
7. She was also able to confirm her understanding that an adverse outcome of the instant proceeding could well involve the Applicant being permanently removed from Australia. She did not want to see such an outcome because she did not want a member of her blood family permanently removed from her and the rest of the family.
8. During cross-examination, she was asked about whether she knew what type of drugs the Applicant had been taking and she responded with not knowing anything of the Applicant's abuse of illicit drugs. Likewise with alcohol, she said that when the Applicant was living with her and her husband, she had never seen him drinking alcohol in their presence. She said she became aware of the Applicant's affray conduct in April 2025 after some other people called her and told her about it.

Evidence of Ms Hayley Attard (Senior Case Manager) Community Corrections

1. It is worth mentioning an email letter to the Applicant's solicitor (dated 2 May 2025) in the material from Ms Hayley Attard who is a Senior Case Manager with QCS appearing in the material.[116] It comprises an independent summary of the extent of the Applicant's engagement with rehabilitation as at the date of this email letter:

We have had to delay providing information as [the Applicant] has since been returned to custody after Parole Board Queensland suspended his parole. He was charged with Affray on 21 April 2025 and is due to appear in the Brisbane Magistrates Court for the matter to be heard on [actual date redacted] May 2025.

I have attached a copy of [the Applicant's] parole for your records.

I have added a few points below regarding his response to supervision.

-[the Applicant] was referred to Ted Noffs (youth counselling service) to address alcohol misuse. He attended appointments with Ted Noffs on 14 January 2025, 28 January 2025 and 12 February 2025. During the appointment on 12 February 2025, he declined needing further

appointments. He continued to disclose alcohol use which was in contravention of a condition of his parole.

- A clear drug test was provided on 28 November 2024, and a presumptively positive test for cocaine was provided on 24 April 2025.

- [the Applicant] attended one session with Headspace before relocating to Emerald for employment"[117]

1. This email letter from Ms Attard is concerning in a number of respects. First, while it refers to the Applicant engaging in some sessions at the Ted Noffs counselling service, it confirms the Applicant's refusal to partake in further sessions. Second, it refers to a presumptively positive test for cocaine on 24 April 2025 which is contemporaneous with his conduct culminating in the affray offence. Third, both the offending and the disclosure of alcohol use and the positive test for cocaine are each serious breaches of his then-applicable bail conditions. Ms Attard did not give oral evidence to the instant hearing.

1. It is also pertinent to have regard to the sentencing remarks of the learned sentencing Judge who dealt with the Applicant in March 2023. In terms of recidivist risk, the learned sentencing Judge noted:

"Youth is very much a relevant factor. The Courts operate on an assumption that

those who are more youthful are more likely to be able to rehabilitate and make

amends in the future for their errant conduct and become contributing members of society. That is very much in your favour."[118]

1. However, these remarks should be tempered against the learned sentencing Judge's following remarks:

"What is not in your favour is the objective seriousness and, in particular, the fact that the wounding with intent was committed in order to facilitate what was clearly a planned robbery, with a recognition that it may turn into an armed robbery. The

number of the wounds, the fact that it occurred while you were on bail for the

evasion offence, for which you were later sentenced to imprisonment for both sets of offences and subject of a notice to appear for the second set of offences, are all very much aggravating features. I do, however, recognise that the injuries do not amount to grievous bodily harm, and in writing it is said that you were intoxicated through alcohol and misuse of prescription-style drugs. That does not excuse your conduct. It may give some indication as to the root cause of the offending and the likelihood of re-offending."[119]

1. Further, the learned sentencing Judge had regard to an impact statement provided by the victim of this stabbing offence. It is worth recounting the dreadful impact this conduct had on the victim and his family:

"Victim Impact Statement - [name of victim redacted]

Where do I begin? The stabbing impacted my life as well as the life of my family. The mental and emotional impact of the incident has affected how my family and I go about our daily life in the most basic of ways. It has been very difficult to cope with this.

What you did left me unable to financially provide for my family. All I wanted to do that day was to sell my phone to provide for my wife and kid. What happened not only left me without a means to provide for my family, you caused them greater harm by having to witness it.

It's very hard to put into words what I have been through and what I'm going through. It's been difficult dealing with all of this and making sense of what happened that day. The agony of just trying to survive has been unbearable and now my life has changed dramatically, not only for myself, but for my wife and kid also .

I have been diagnosed with PTSD which has affected my ability to work, my relationship with my wife and my kids as well as with other people. I have had to seek treatment and am still seeing psychologists and taking medication to help me keep some control over my life and not lose touch with reality. In my current condition l have to limit my work. Due to this; I am struggling to provide financially for my family. I am also struggling to emotionally support my wife and kids. Coping with the PTSD has been very difficult as I have triggers, I deal with every day and some days the PTSD takes over. What is most heartbreaking is that my wife also suffers from PTSD and a fear of blood. Witnessing how fearless you both were in trying to inflict injury onto me caused her a great deal of distress.

I don't know how I can move on knowing that the wound you inflicted on me could have ended my life. I am now fearful of other people when I go to work or just leave the house in general. Your actions have caused me to be fearful of other people and the harm they could do to me and my family .

Both of you have caused so much pain in my life that I will have to carry forever. Because of your actions I now have to take medication everyday just to be able to have a somewhat normal life.

Received via email on 2 March 2023"[120]

1. To secure the protection visa he seeks, the Applicant must negotiate the following sections:

(a) Section 36(1A)(a): the Applicant must satisfy the following criteria: > > > (i) pursuant to sub-section (1B) that the Applicant has not been assessed by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation as a direct or indirect risk to Australia's security. The material contains no suggestion or assessment of the Applicant representing any such risk; > > > > (ii) pursuant to sub-section (1C) that the Applicant is not a person whom the Respondent Minister considers, on reasonable grounds: > > > > (ii) - pursuant to s 36(1C)(a) is a danger to Australia's security. There is no contention before the Tribunal that the Applicant represents any such threat; or > > > > (ii) - pursuant to s 36(1C)(b), having been convicted by a final judgement of a particularly serious crime, is a danger to the Australian community. > > AND > > (b) Section 36(1A)(b): for the grant of a Protection visa, the Applicant must satisfy one of the criteria in s 36(2). For present purposes, the material contains a Protection Visa Decision Assessment dated 4 November 2024 wherein a finding was made that the Applicant satisfies the criterion contained in s 36(2)(aa).[121] This Protection Visa Assessment dated 4 November 2024 did not appear to cavil with the Applicant's previously assessed status as a refugee within the meaning of s 5H(1) of the Act. > > (c) Section 36(2C): provides that the Applicant is not taken to satisfy the complementary criterion assessment contained in s 36(2)(aa) if, inter alia, pursuant to s 36(2C)(b), the Minister considers on reasonable grounds that: > > (i) the Applicant is a danger to Australia's security; or > > (ii) having been convicted by a final judgement of a particularly serious crime, the Applicant is a danger to the Australian community.

2. The two conditioning criteria in s 36(2C)(b) are substantially similar to those contained in s 36(1C). The only difference is that the second conditioning criterion in s 36(2C)(b)(ii) contains the words '...(including a crime that consists of the commission of a serious Australian offence or serious foreign offence)...' There is no suggestion the Applicant has committed a serious foreign offence.
3. Therefore: (1) the same reply (and finding) I made for s 36(1C)(a) can be made for section 36(2C)(b)(i); and (2) the only residual issue for determination by this Tribunal is that contained in ss 36(1C)(b) and 36(2C)(b)(ii), namely, whether the Applicant, having been convicted by a final judgement of a particularly serious crime, is a danger to the Australian community.
4. It is well-settled that there are two separate sub-questions raised by s 36(1C)(b).[122] First, has the Applicant been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime? Second, if the first question is answered in the affirmative, does the Applicant represent a danger to the Australian community?
5. The first question can be essentially interpreted as a jurisdictional fact. If there is one serious Australian offence, then the second question - whether the Applicant is a danger to the Australian community - arises for consideration.
6. I will consider each question in turn.

Sub-Issue 1: Has the Applicant been convicted by a final judgment of a serious crime?

1. It is uncontroversial between the parties that the Applicant meets this sub-issue 1.[123] I will find accordingly.

Sub-Issue 2: Whether the Applicant is a danger to the Australian community?

1. In SZOQQ and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2012] FCAFC 40; (2012) 200 FCR 174, the Full Court said 36(1C) of the Act does not facilitate a 'balancing exercise'. I cannot, for example, weigh the consequences of refoulement for an applicant to their country of origin (or possibly in this case, the Applicant's removal to Nauru against whatever danger that applicant might pose to the Australian community:

'[...] we see the language of Art 33(2), construed in the context of the Refugees Convention as a whole, as intractable. The ordinary meaning of Art 33(2) (subject to one matter) is clear. The benefit of the duty against refoulement in Art 33(1) cannot be claimed by a refugee if the circumstances specified in Art 33(2) are present. The structure and text of the provisions do not permit any balancing exercise.'[124]

1. For reasons that follow, I am of the view that an application of the four abovementioned considerations in WKCG to the instant facts necessarily results in a finding that this Applicant represents a danger to the Australian community. This finding will be principally based on an application of the four assessments stipulated in WKCG even though this list is not exhaustive. The concept of "danger" should, for present purposes, carry its ordinary meaning. Danger should be regarded as a function of (1) probability and (2) consequence.
2. In terms of the former, the Tribunal must determine whether there exists a sufficient risk, possibility or probability of harm. In terms of the latter, it is necessary to assess the consequential outcomes resulting from the danger, most usually comprising physical or psychological injury. When assessed together, the Federal Court has found these two concepts mean that the higher the probability of a person re-committing unlawful conduct, the less severe the consequences of that conduct might need to be for the purpose of assessing the extent to which that person now represents a danger to the Australian community.[125]
3. I will now discuss the four assessments appearing in WKCG.

The seriousness and nature of the crimes committed, the length of the sentences imposed, and any mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

1. It is well-settled that imposition of a custodial term is the last resort of a judicial sentencing officer and that such term is a reliable reflection of the objective seriousness of that offending.[126] The Applicant's sentencing history is one of relative brevity, both in terms of the number of offences convicted (six) and the length of it which runs from October 2021 to March 2023. To this list of convictions, there should be added the most recent sentence of imprisonment in September 2025 which does not appear in the criminal history before the Tribunal.[127] The level of seriousness of the conduct is escalating, not dissipating. The Applicant began offending at the age of 18 years and continued to offend into 2025.
2. Much of the Applicant's unlawfully violent conduct was clinically and premeditatively executed. It was not spontaneous offending. Rather, it involved conduct unprovoked by any victim or set of circumstances. Much of it was intended to intentionally deprive a victim of their personalty and to unhesitatingly resort to violence in the pursuit of that objective. Of perhaps more significant concern is the Applicant's disdain and lack of respect for lawful authority as a means of deterrence. While awaiting sentencing on conviction for "attempted robbery with actual violence whilst armed / in company / wounded / used personal violence" - which ultimately attracted the imposition of significant head custodial time - the Applicant committed further offences.
3. While on parole and awaiting ventilation of the instant proceeding which obviously carries existential consequences for his visa status to remain in this country and proximate to his family, he re-offended (in April) and was again convicted. Similarly, neither his release into the community, nor his return to his family, nor his securing of remunerative employment in Emerald were sufficient to curb his predisposition to knowingly break the law.
4. The very serious nature of the offending can also be gleaned from two additional sources. First, from its impact on at least one victim. I have earlier referred to the victim impact statement[128] referable to the Applicant's conduct sentenced in March 2023 for which the Court imposed cumulative head custodial time of almost seven and a half years. That victim impact statement can only be read in one way. It is a polemic of very significant trauma gratuitously perpetrated on an entirely innocent victim who tells the Applicant: "What happened left me without a means to provide for my family, you caused them greater harm by [them] having to witness it."[129]
5. Second, the learned sentencing Judge who dealt with the Applicant in March 2023 variously described the conduct before the Court as "serious", "serious enough" and "terrible". His Honour referred to the single count of the attempted armed robbery of a woman's car during which at least one of the Applicant's three co-offenders was armed with a knife as "serious".[130] Hs Honour then referred to the Applicant's commission of two additional offences while the Applicant was subject to a Notice to Appear for the first offence as "serious enough".[131] His Honour then prefaced his summary of the circumstances of the attack on the victim for the purpose of relieving him of three mobile telephones with the words: "What you did... is terrible".[132]
6. Looked at cumulatively, the Applicant's conduct has impacted not just individual victims but the community more generally. He will not be heard to dispute any finding that his conduct has clearly and obviously impacted individual victims. A woman at the end of her work shift doing nothing more than cleaning out her workplace but then confronted by a gang of four offenders, at least one of who was armed with a knife, who intended to steal her car is conduct that would have traumatised that victim. Likewise, the victim of the conduct involving the theft of mobile telephones belonging to him impacted both him and his members of his family who witnessed it.
7. The affray conduct in April 2025 perpetrated in the public space of a suburban shopping centre clearly caused alarm in the minds of entirely innocent and disinterested shoppers going about their business. Members of the public who read of this conduct in press reports become anxious and concerned about their own safety in carparks, in public spaces and in other places where they are entitled to use and enjoy both their own personal property and publicly available amenities. The proprietors of the business that employed the Applicant in Emerald (for barely a month) were most likely compelled, as a result of his further offending, to go through the process of employing someone else. An inordinate proportion of the community's policing, judicial sentencing and custodial resources have been unduly consumed by this Applicant's unlawful conduct.
8. I am satisfied that each of (1) the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's unlawful conduct; (2) the nature of the sentences imposed on him; (3) the cumulative effects of his offending; and (4) the aggravating features of his unlawful conduct now combine to render him a danger to the Australian community.

1. I have already recounted the Applicant's criminal history. He first came here in July 2016 as a 13 year old. He began offending here when he was 18 and has committed 6-7 offences that have been dealt with at least 3-4 sentencing episodes that saw the imposition of head custodial time of almost seven and half years, not including the additional custodial time he served consequent upon his offending in April 2025. He is now 23 years of age and it is not in any way a stretch of the evidence to suggest and find that criminal offending has dominated his adult life in this country. While the volume and length of his criminal history have been relatively brief, he has during its span, offended frequently and very seriously.
2. It has been offending that has (1) failed to respect the personal rights of others; (2) failed to respect the property rights of others; (3) failed to respect the lawful authority represented by the police and duly made written orders compelling him to do or refrain from doing something; and (4) failed to experience any form of deterrent effect from the sentencing regime that sentencing courts progressively imposed upon him. For a quite young man, he has compiled what is, on any objectively reasonable view, a very serious criminal history that should render him unworthy for receipt of any visa to remain here. The nature and extent of the seriousness of the Applicant's offending is not dissipating with time. The violence characterising his conduct sentenced in March 2023 is not distinct from the affray conduct in April 2025.
3. The Federal Court has identified both quantitative and qualitative dimensions to the danger represented by an Applicant in this type of proceeding. I will address the state of the Applicant's rehabilitation later in these reasons. For the purposes of assessing the totality of his criminal record, it suffices to now observe that the quantitative dimension or spectrum of the danger represented by this Applicant is to be found in the relatively incomplete state of his rehabilitation which gives rise to a plausible possibility of harm in the event he were to re-offend. The qualitative spectrum of the danger he now presents derives from the convincing prospect that such further offending is very likely to result in physical or psychological harm to a victim.[133]
4. I am therefore satisfied that when viewed as a whole, the Applicant's criminal history strongly supports a finding that he remains a danger to the community.

The risk of re-offending and recidivism and the likelihood of relapsing into crime

1. Even when incarcerated, the Applicant's connection to violence did not dissipate. While in prison, he was involved in at least four reliably reported episodes involving violence between him and other inmates. I have earlier recounted those episodes as occurring on, respectively, 2 September 2022, 8 October 2022, 11 October 2022 and 7 March 2023. I have also recounted the Applicant's response to these incidents as it appears in his second statement dated 10 June 2024. While there may be an element of re-telling the story in some of the Applicant's responses to these reported incidents, the reality remains that where he goes, violence usually follows.
2. What is concerning from a recidivist perspective is that this propensity followed him from criminal custody into the community when he committed the affray conduct in April 2025 which saw him, respectively, breach his bail conditions, lose his employment and led to his further incarceration for breaching parole as a result of re-offending. This transition of violent predisposition from jail to the community does not bode well for the recidivist risk he now represents.
3. A further concern related to this propensity towards violence involves the Applicant's claimed non-affiliation with criminal gangs. On the one hand, he admits to being familiar and friendly with people from a gang known as 'Southside Drillers' but on the other hand denies any suggestion that he was, or has been, a member of that gang at any previous time. He purports to explain any association with such gang members on the basis that he his part of a 'friendship group' that has apparently existed from when he was much younger and that, by chance, some of these now gang members are also part of this 'friendship group.' I will find this evidence to be both unreliable and unsubstantiated. For the present exercise of assessing the danger this Applicant now represents to the community, it is concerning to note the findings of a QCS report which said the following about the Applicant's connections with anti-social peers:

Agency assessments remain outstanding however, [the Applicant] appears to present with criminogenic risk in relations substance abuse, anti-social peers/associates, and anti-social attitudes/cognitions. [The Applicant] has the propensity for violence towards members of the community when in the presence of anti-social peers, consuming alcohol or illicit substances. Further, [the Applicant] is a confirmed affiliate of the Southside Drillers (SSD) street gang... , with the gang historically being involved in impulsive and violent offending."[134]

1. It is, to my mind, important that in explaining the circumstances of the affray in April 2025, the Applicant (as would be expected) distanced himself from being the target of any attack from members of a rival gang and instead sought to suggest that those rival gang members attacked his brother and that he (the Applicant) became involved in the melee as a protective measure towards his brother. Putting to one side the veracity or reliability of that version, the stark reality is that gang rivalry is at the epicentre of the circumstances of this incident in which the Applicant found himself committing conduct that breached his bail and for which he was convicted.

1. Recurring throughout the Applicant's unlawful conduct is an underlying theme of illicit substance and/or alcohol abuse. The learned sentencing Judge who dealt with the Applicant in March 2023 was alive to this reality when he noted that at the time of the offending being dealt with that day, the Applicant was "...intoxicated through alcohol and misuse of prescription-style drugs. That does not excuse your conduct. It may give some indication as to the root cause of the offending and the likelihood of re-offending."[135] The further reality is that the Applicant resumed a relationship with alcohol - even though he knew this would be a breach of his bail conditions - very shortly after being released into the community.[136] In addition, he provided a positive test for alcohol and cocaine on 24 April 2025.[137]
2. Given this demonstrated history of illicit substance and alcohol abuse in and around his offending conduct, it is, to my mind, significantly concerning that the material before the Tribunal contains no record of any psychiatric or psychological assessment of the Applicant's substance abuse history. There is no independent clinical opinion identifying any specific factors pre-disposing him to abusing those substances, or whether those factors are under any sought of remedial management and control and, if so, whether there is any clinically independent prognosis about the extent to which these predispositive factors impact his future recidivist risk.
3. The Respondent's SFIC recounts certain drug and alcohol courses in which the Applicant has partaken.[138] To my mind, what is of greater concern for the present assessment of the danger the Applicant represents to the community is the incomplete state of his rehabilitation. True it may be that while in criminal custody the Applicant may have experienced some difficulty in accessing rehabilitative courses. But the underlying reality is that while he has been referred for consideration for such courses, he is yet to engage with them in any fulsome way because of either (1) other circumstances have prevailed preventing him from doing so such as his move to Emerald for work purposes; and/or (2) he has simply refused to participate in them as noted by Ms Attard in her abovementioned email dated 2 May 2025.[139] There can be no denying the confluence of these two things mean that the state of the Applicant's rehabilitation from illicit substance and alcohol abuse is incomplete.

Additional factor: the opinions of others about recidivist risk

1. The learned sentencing Judge who dealt with the Applicant in March 2023 clearly thought the Applicant's difficulties with alcohol and/or illicit drugs and/or prescription style drugs "...may give some indication as to the root cause of the offending and the likelihood of re-offending."[140] It is reasonable to infer His Honour was of the view that a failure to bring the Applicant's issues with illicit substance and/or alcohol abuse were front and centre in any assessment of his recidivist risk. Similarly, on 22 August 2023, the Parole Board of Queensland "...formed the preliminary view that it cannot be confident that if [the Applicant] were released to a parole order [the Applicant] would comply with the conditions the Board is entitled to impose to ensure [the Applicant's] good conduct and to stop [the Applicant] committing an offence, at this time."[141]
2. The Parole Board's reservations were justified having regard to the Applicant's subsequent breach of parole due to the Applicant's further offending while (on his own evidence) under the influence of alcohol which, in turn, caused the revocation of that parole and the Applicant's re-incarceration. Similarly, the QCS conducted a security classification on this Applicant in March 2023 and reached the following findings:

"I have decided to classify you, [the Applicant] a HIGH security classification"[142];

"You have been assessed as having a Risk of Reoffending Prison Version (RoR-PV) score of 7 which indicates you fall into the category of prisoners who pose a moderate risk of further general offending, however I note that this score does not indicate your risk of violent reoffending."[143] [My emphasis];

"I note the nature of your current offending demonstrates an escalation of your offending behaviour."[144]; and

"...I consider you pose an elevated risk to others and the safety and security of the corrective services facility at this time,..."[145]

Additional factor: absence of protective factors

1. There are claims made by the Applicant, his sister and his mother about any asserted proximal nature in the relationship between him and the family. There is little or nothing in the material before me to demonstrate those claimed family ties have in the past, or in the future will, militate against his future recidivist risk. A similar finding can be made about the extent to which holding down a paid job may in future lower the Applicant's recidivist risk. He held a paying job (for barely a month) in Emerald in March/April 2025 but he conceded he consumed at least some alcohol with Mr E in Emerald. He further conceded he had consumed at least some alcohol on a return visit in April 2025 contemporaneous with his conduct leading to the affray conviction. It is safe to find that neither his family or the holding of any paid employment have in the past acted, or in the future have any convincing prospect of acting, as protective factors against the Applicant's recidivist risk.

1. I have earlier mentioned the Applicant's failure to experience any deterrent effect from sentences previously imposed upon him. He also failed to experience any deterrent effect from conditions attaching to his grant of parole and the bridging visa granted to him as an NZYQ releasee. As noted by the Respondent, not even the looming instant hearing (in May 2025) where its very purpose was to determine whether he represents a danger to the Australian community was enough to deter the Applicant from re-offending in the previous month of April 2025.

1. I have considered the totality of both the written and oral evidence before the Tribunal. I have applied the relevant considerations outlined in WKCG to this material as well as some additional factors that relevantly arise from it. I have arrived at a finding that there remains a medium to high level of risk of this Applicant seriously (and even very seriously) violently re-offending if returned to the Australian community. I am therefore of the view (and I find) that he remains a danger to the Australian community.
2. The Applicant's rehabilitation is substantially incomplete. There is a concerning lack of clinical opinion about any predispositive factors behind his offending and whatever extent to which those factors may now be said to be under any form of remedial management and control. There is little in the evidence, when viewed through the lens of the WKCG factors (and the additional factors I have identified) to displace my finding that this Applicant remains a danger to the Australian community.
3. The Australian community has experienced the impact of this Applicant's offending sentenced between October 2021 and April 2025. The Australian community should not be compelled to further endure (and experience) the significantly serious outcomes resulting from his future unlawful conduct in this country. The visa he seeks will be denied to him.

1. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review dated 4 November 2024 and finds that:
   1. having been convicted of a particularly serious crime, the Applicant is a danger to the Australian community within the meaning of ss 36(1C)(b) and s 36(2C)(b)(ii) of the Act; and
   2. the Applicant is not eligible for a Protection visa pursuant to s 36(1A) of the Act.

I certify that the preceding 136 (one hundred and thirty-six) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member Theodore Tavoularis

...................................[SGD]................................

Applicant's Submissions in respective of translation/interpretation

Respondents Statement of Facts Issues and Contentions

[1] Hereinafter referred to as the "visa".

[2] Hereinafter referred to as "the Respondent" or "the Minister" or "the Respondent Minister"

[3] Hereinafter referred to as the "decision under review".

[4] Hereinafter referred to as "the Act".

[5] Hereinafter referred to as the "Refugee Visa".

[6] This Applicant remains in the community on that visa.

[7] Hereinafter referred to as 'SFIC.'

[8] See R5, p 3, [14]. Note to reader: I have intentionally redacted the actual date of the Applicant's appearance in Court for each sentencing hearing in an effort to protect his identity.

[9] That is, the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

[10] Hartwick v PE Hack [2007] FCA 1039 at [12], per Kiefel J (as Her Honour then was).

[12] The transcript of the sentencing hearing appears at A5, pp 6-9; the conviction details and the updated "Queensland Person Report" containing reference to the conviction for affray appears at R4, pp 143 and 146-147.

[13] In this case, the Protection (subclass 866) (Class XA) visa.

[14] This has occurred via the decision under review made on 4 November 2024.

[15] Section 65(1)(a) of the Act.

[16] Section 65(1)(b) of the Act.

[17] The Applicant does not claim to engage either of ss 36(2)(b) or (c) - his immediate family members still hold subclass 202 Global Special Humanitarian visas (Exhibit T1, T2, page 17).

[20] A previous title of the Respondent Minister in the instant application.

[25] See generally LKQD v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2019] FCA 1591; (2019) 167 ALD 17 25[31]-27[40] and the cases cited in those paragraphs.

[26] Ministerial Direction No 75 - Refusal of Protection visas relying on ss 36(1C) and 36(2C)(b), made under s 499 of the Act (on 6 September 2017), requires Departmental decision-makers to consider a Protection visa applicant's refugee and complementary protection claims under ss 36(2)(a) and (aa) before considering any character or security concerns.

[27] See discussion by Senior Member Furnell in WGKS and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2020] AATA 38 at [175]. See also discussion by Deputy President Boyle in RWDX and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration) [2019] AATA 123 at [76]-[78] and HSCK and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration) [2019] AATA 4392 at [151]-[153].

[30] See generally, R2, pp 140-142 where the delegate looked at elements such as "Part 8: Protection in another country assessment and finding - s 36(3)-(5A) of the Act" and "Part 9: Security and danger to the Australian community - s36(1B), s36(1C) and s36(2C)(b) of the Act" but did not consider these elements prevented satisfaction of s 36(2)(aa).

[31] Explanatory Memorandum, Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Bill 2014, page 12.

[32] Explanatory Memorandum, Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Bill 2014, page 10.

[39] Hereinafter referred to as 'Ms M.'

[51] Bearing in mind the Applicant became an NZYQ releasee in November 2024.

[58] Bearing in mind the date of this statement is 20 March 2025.

[90] Note to reader: at a telephone directions hearing held on 10 February 2026, the parties agreed to an amendment of this statement. The original version of this statement ran for 29 paragraphs. At this telephone directions hearing, the parties agreed that [1] to [22] (inclusive) would remain unaltered and that a new group of paragraphs would be inserted in the document running from [23] to [31].

[106] Note to reader: the Applicant's sister (Ms M) gave oral evidence on the second hearing day of this matter which occurred on 22 January 2026. At the telephone directions hearing held on 10 February 2026 (see footnote 90), the parties agreed that the Applicant's sister would give her oral evidence afresh on the next hearing day of this matter which occurred on 19 February 2026. This was confirmed by the parties at the commencement of the final hearing day on 19 February 2026 immediately prior to the Applicant's sister giving her fresh oral evidence on that hearing day.

[122] See SZOQQ and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2012] FCAFC 40; (2012) 200 FCR 174 ('SZOQQ') [52] (Jagot and Barker JJ, Flick J agreeing at [28]) (set aside on different grounds: SZOQQ and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2013] HCA 12; (2013) 251 CLR 577); DOB18 and Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 63; (2019) 269 FCR 636 ('DOB18') [49] (Logan J); WKCG and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] AATA 512; (2001) 110 ALD 434 ('WKCG') [29] (Deputy President Tamberlin QC).

[123] See: A1, p 5, [27]; see also R5, p 7, [27].

[124] SZOQQ [49] (Jagot and Barker JJ), [27] (Flick J, agreeing).

[125] DMQ20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 84; (2023) 297 FCR 550 at [106]- [107]; [109], [111], [114]. Cited with approval by the Fill Court in SLGS v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 104.

[126] PNLB and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] AATA 162

[133] DMQ20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 84; (2023) 297 FCR 550 at [106]- [107]; [109], [111], [114]. Cited with approval by the Full Court in SLGS v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 104.

[137] See: A3, p 7 (email from Ms Attard dated 2 March 2025).