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

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

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

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

1. Paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110 contains the principles which provide the framework within which decision-makers should approach their task of deciding whether to refuse or cancel a non-citizen's visa under s 501, or whether to revoke a mandatory cancellation under s 501CA. Those principles are:

(1) Australia has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia. Being able to come to or remain in Australia is a privilege Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law-abiding, will respect important institutions, such as Australia's law enforcement framework, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community. > > (2) The safety of the Australian Community is the highest priority of the Australian Government. > > (3) Non-citizens who engage or have engaged in criminal or other serious conduct should expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the privilege of staying in, Australia. > > (4) The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they engaged in conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, that raises serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measureable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community. > > (5) Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, or by other non-citizens who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only for a short period of time. > > (6) With respect to decisions to refuse, cancel, and revoke cancellation of a visa, Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age. > > (7) Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the non-citizen's conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation. > > (8) The inherent nature of certain conduct such as family violence is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation, even if the information available at the time of consideration suggests that the non-citizen does not pose a measureable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.

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

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

4. Paragraph 8 contains the primary considerations which are:

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

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

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

1. The Applicant is a 54-year-old national of Iceland who was born in Vietnam.[2] Following completion of his schooling, the Applicant studied economics in Germany.[3]
2. In 1998, the Applicant migrated to Iceland.[4] Whilst in Iceland, the Applicant had two children who continue to reside in Iceland. Those children were born in 2005 and 2009.[5] The Applicant has two siblings that reside in Germany and one who remains in Vietnam.[6]
3. On 22 February 2011, the Applicant first arrived in Australia on a Visitor visa.[7]
4. In 2012, the Applicant commenced a relationship with his current wife (Ms Nhi Thu Ni Nguyen).[8]
5. At the time they met, Ms Nguyen had two children from a previous relationship (Ms N. Nguyen who is currently 19 years old and Child A who is currently 17 years old).[9]
6. On 1 January 2014, the Applicant and Ms Nguyen had a daughter (Child B) who is currently 11 years old.[10]
7. On 28 June 2014, the Applicant and Ms Nguyen were married and remain together.[11]
8. On 17 January 2018, the Applicant was granted a Class BS (subclass 801) Partner visa.[12]
9. Prior to this current offending the Applicant had no prior convictions.

1. On 20 December 2023, the Applicant pleaded guilty in the County Court of Victoria to one rolled-up charge of possessing precursor chemicals on 3 July 2019 (Charge 1) and another rolled-up charge of cultivate a commercial quantity of cannabis between 8 October 2019 and 25 April 2020 (Charge 2).[13]

1. In early 2019, Victoria Police began an investigation into a syndicate of offenders involved in the production of methylamphetamine and the cultivation of cannabis (known as Operation Prefades).[14]
2. On 2 July 2019, police observed the Applicant's co-offenders loading chemicals into a truck in the western suburbs of Melbourne. Later that evening, one of the Applicant's co-offenders was observed driving the truck to a business known as Paramount Chemicals where further chemicals and equipment were loaded into the truck. The Applicant was a passenger in the truck at that time.[15] Thereafter the truck drove to various addresses across Melbourne where it is believed further chemicals and equipment were loaded into the truck.[16]
3. At about 4am on 3 July 2019, the Applicant's co-offenders left Melbourne heading towards Sydney. Just after 6.30am, the truck was intercepted by police. Police located a large amount of chemicals and scientific glassware commonly used in the manufacture of methylamphetamine.[17] The contents of the truck were analysed and found to contain the following precursor chemicals:[18]
   • 88 kg of formaldehyde;
   • 9.9 kg of what is known as GABA, that is 4-aminobutanoic acid;
   • 3.3 kg of hydrogen;
   • 1.5 kg of benzaldehyde; and
   • 107.2 kg of ammonium chloride, together with 80 L of toluene and other chemicals such as hydrochloric acid.
4. Police later intercepted phone conversations between the Applicant and his co-offenders which confirmed the Applicant's proprietary interest in the contents of the truck.[19]

1. Charge 2 is a rolled-up charge encompassing cultivation of cannabis in not less than a commercial quantity at two properties in Cairnlea and Portland, Victoria.[20]
2. In relation to the Cairnlea property, it was alleged that the Applicant was involved in two separate episodes of cultivation.[21] In relation to the first episode, the Applicant accepted that he played an 'organisational role' in the cultivation of 27kg of cannabis at that property.[22]
3. In relation to the second episode at the same property, the Applicant was found to be 'actively involved' in the cannabis cultivation of a further 55.7kg of cannabis.[23]
4. The Applicant was also found to be involved 'at an organisational level' in the cultivation of a further 133.1kg of cannabis at Portland.[24]
5. The total quantity of cannabis which the Applicant was convicted of cultivating was 215.8kg.[25] The commercial quantity at the relevant time was 25kg.[26]
6. On 12 August 2020, the Applicant was arrested and remanded into custody.[27]

1. In respect of Charge 1 (Possess precursor chemicals) the Applicant was convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years and three months.[28]
2. In respect of Charge 2 (Cultivate cannabis not less than a commercial quantity) the Applicant was convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of four years and three months.[29]
3. The sentencing judge ordered that one year of the sentence imposed on Charge 1 be served cumulatively upon the sentence imposed on Charge 2, which resulted in a total effective sentence of five years and three months imprisonment.[30] A non-parole period of three years and three months was fixed.[31] The time the Applicant spent in custody awaiting sentence was taken into account as pre-sentence detention.[32]

1. On 26 and 27 June 2025 a Tribunal hearing was held in person at the Melbourne registry. The Tribunal received into evidence the following material:

(a) Exhibit R1: Hearing Book lodged 18 June 2025 totalling 805 pages of material comprising: > > > (i) G-Documents; > > > > (ii) Minister's Tender Bundle; > > > > (iii) Minister's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, > > > > (iv) Material filed by the Applicant. > > (b) Exhibit R2: Supplementary Hearing Book totalling 71 pages of material that was lodged by the Applicant on 20 June 2025; and > > (c) Exhibit R3: Sydney Morning Herald article dated 18 December 2009 titled '$70m laundering scam puts six in jail'.

2. The Applicant gave evidence and was cross-examined. Prior to giving evidence, he was informed about his privilege against self-incrimination. He indicated he understood this privilege. The Applicant called evidence from his wife Ms Nguyen and two friends, Mr Loi Van Nham and Quang Minh Dang. Ms Nguyen was also informed about the privilege against self-incrimination which she advised she understood. All witnesses, including the Applicant, were assisted by an interpreter in the Vietnamese language.

1. On 5 April 2024, the Applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more. This means he has a 'substantial criminal record' according to the definition in s 501(7) of the Act. A person who has a substantial criminal record does not pass the character test according to s 501(6)(a) of the Act. There is no dispute between the parties that the Applicant fails the character test.
2. The Tribunal therefore makes a finding that the Applicant does not pass the character test. He cannot rely on s 501CA(4)(b)(i) as a basis to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa.

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

1. The remaining issue to be determined is whether there is 'another reason' why the mandatory cancellation decision should be revoked under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act.
2. In order to determine this issue, the Tribunal is required to undertake an assessment of the representations put forward by the Applicant.[33] The Tribunal is required to read, identify, understand and evaluate the representations and must bring its mind to bear upon the facts stated in them or the arguments and opinions put forward and appreciate who is making them.[34] The weight to be afforded to the representations is a matter for the decision-maker.[35]
3. The Tribunal will undertake this task by applying the terms of the Direction to the circumstances of the Applicant's case.

Primary consideration 1: Protection of the Australian community

(1) When considering protection of the Australian community, decision-makers should keep in mind that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government. To that end, the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. In this respect, decision-makers should have particular regard to the principle that entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, will respect important institutions, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community. > > (2) Decision-makers should also give consideration to: > > a) the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's conduct to date; and > > b) the risk to the Australian community, should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.

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

(1) In considering the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's criminal offending or other conduct to date, decision-makers must have regard to the following: > > a) without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered very serious, the types of crimes or conduct described below are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian community: > > i. violent and/or sexual crimes; > > ii. crimes of a violent and/or sexual nature against women or children, regardless of the sentence imposed; > > iii. acts of family violence, regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed; > > b) without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered serious, the types of crimes or conduct described below are considered by the Australian Government and the Australian community to be serious: > > i. causing a person to enter into or being party to a forced marriage (other than being a victim), regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed; > > ii. crimes committed against vulnerable members of the community (such as the elderly and the disabled), or government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties; > > iii. any conduct that forms the basis for a finding that a non-citizen does not pass an aspect of the character test that is dependent upon the decision-maker's opinion (for example, section 501(6)(c)); > > iv. where the non-citizen is in Australia, a crime committed while the non-citizen was in immigration detention, during an escape from immigration detention, or after the non-citizen escaped from immigration detention, but before the non-citizen was taken into immigration detention again, or an offence against section 197A of the Act, which prohibits escape from immigration detention; > > c) with the exception of the crimes or conduct mentioned in subparagraph (a)(ii), (a)(iii) or (b)(i) above, the sentence imposed by the courts for a crime or crimes; > > d) the impact of the offending on any victims of offending or other conduct and their family, where information in this regard is available and the non- citizen whose visa is being considered for refusal or cancellation, or who has sought revocation of the mandatory cancellation of their visa, has been afforded procedural fairness; > > e) the frequency of the non-citizen's offending and/or whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness; > > f) the cumulative effect of repeated offending; > > g) whether the non-citizen has provided false or misleading information to the Department, including by not disclosing prior criminal offending; > > h) whether the non-citizen has re-offended since being formally warned, or since otherwise being made aware, in writing, about the consequences of further offending in terms of the non-citizen's migration status (noting that the absence of a warning should not be considered to be in the non-citizen's favour). > > i) where the offence or conduct was committed in another country, whether that offence or conduct is classified as an offence in Australia.

2. As is evident from the paragraphs above, the Direction does not limit the range of conduct that may be considered 'very serious' or 'serious'. The Applicant has noted in his written submission that he 'has never committed any violent or sexual offences.'[36] He said there is no pattern of repeated criminal conduct and, since his incarceration, he has shown clear remorse, undertaken behavioural change courses, and completed vocational training.[37]
3. He says further that he understands his actions were dangerous to the community and accepts that drugs can cause physical, psychological and financial harm both directly and indirectly to others.[38]
4. The Respondent submits that the Tribunal should regard the Applicant's offending as very serious.[39] The Respondent relies on the sentence imposed, the quantities involved, and the Applicant's role in the offending.[40] The Respondent also submits that the offending was sophisticated, carried out for profit, in a calculated manner, and carried out over a protracted period of time.[41]
5. The Tribunal considers that the Applicant's offending can appropriately be viewed as very serious. This is due to the following factors:

(a) The maximum penalties for the offences: The maximum penalty for the Possess precursor chemicals charge is five years imprisonment. The maximum penalty for the Cultivation of a commercial quantity of cannabis charge is 25 years imprisonment.[42] In addition, Cultivation of a commercial quantity of cannabis is classified as a Category 2 offence under Part 3, Division 2 of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic). That means that a court must sentence a person convicted of a Category 2 offence to a custodial disposition unless exceptional circumstances apply.[43] The Tribunal has had regard to the maximum penalties for these offences, particularly the Cultivation offence, and the legislative direction that persons who have been convicted of that offence type must be sentenced to a custodial sentence. The Tribunal considers that the maximum penalties are reflective of the seriousness with which the legislature views these offences and takes this into account. > > (b) The sentence imposed: The Applicant was sentenced to two years and three months imprisonment on Charge 1, and four years and three months imprisonment on Charge 2. Charge 2 was determined to be the base sentence and one year of the sentence imposed on Charge 1 was ordered to be served cumulatively on Charge 2. In total, the sentencing judge imposed a head sentence of five years and three months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years and three months. The sentencing judge noted the objective seriousness of the offending and stated that: > > Dealing in large quantities of drugs will necessarily attract lengthy terms of imprisonment in order to deter others from engaging in similar conduct. The profits to be made from this sort of enterprise are likely to be considerable but it must be appreciated in the wider community that the risks of engaging in such an enterprise simply are not worth it. > > (c) The Tribunal considers that the sentence imposed in this case is significant. The sentencing judge took into account the Applicant's prospects for rehabilitation, lack of prior convictions and family support in his favour. The sentencing judge also took into account the uncertainty regarding the Applicant's visa cancellation, which created an additional hardship. With all those mitigating factors considered, the Tribunal regards the sentence as reflective of the objective seriousness of the Applicant's offending and takes this into account. > > (d) The quantities involved: The amount of precursor chemicals seized was on any view significant. For example, police seized 88kg of formaldehyde. The police brief notes that possession of formaldehyde over 150 grams is regarded as a precursor chemical in the relevant legislation.[44] The amount of cannabis involved is also significant. The commercial quantity at the relevant time was defined by the legislation as 25 kg. The Applicant was convicted of cultivating 215.8kg of cannabis which is over eight times the commercial quantity applicable to that drug. > > (e) The Applicant's role: The sentencing judge noted that the Applicant and his co-offender played 'an organisational role' in the cultivation of 27kg of cannabis at Cairnlea.[45] In relation to the further seizure at Cairnlea of 55.7kg, the sentencing judge described the Applicant as 'actively involved' in that cannabis cultivation.[46] The sentencing judge also noted that the Applicant was involved at an 'organisational level' in relation to the cultivation of 133.1kg of cannabis at Portland.[47] Finally, the Applicant was noted to have a 'proprietary interest' in the contents of the truck in which police seized the precursor chemicals.[48] It is clear from the sentencing remarks that the Applicant was actively involved as an organiser of the cannabis cultivation. This role can be distinguished from that of one of his co-offenders whose role was described as 'more subsidiary but nonetheless active.'[49]

6. The Tribunal has also had regard to the other factors identified at paragraph 8.1.1(1) as follows.
7. Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(c): The sentence imposed by the court was significant. The court noted that dealing in large quantities of drugs will 'necessarily attract large terms of imprisonment in order to deter others from engaging in similar conduct.'[50] The sentencing judge took into account the matters in the Applicant's favour such as his plea of guilty. The sentencing judge regarded the plea as important because of the utilitarian value to the criminal justice system, although noted that that the plea was 'belated.'[51] The sentencing judge otherwise accepted that had the matters gone to trial, given the volume of material, those trials would have been lengthy and reasonably complex. Therefore, the saving to the community by avoiding those trials was 'considerable' and that saving merits 'a significant reduction in the sentence that would otherwise be imposed.'[52] Even with this discount, a head sentence of five years and three months is a significant sentence, and the Tribunal takes this into account.
8. Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(d): The impact of drug offending on the wider community is uncontroversial. The Respondent relied on various reports which spoke of the harm that methylamphetamine and cannabis has on the Australian community.[53] The Applicant fell to be sentenced for possessing precursor chemicals and glassware commonly used in the manufacture of methylamphetamine.[54] It is accepted that he was not charged with the manufacture or trafficking of that drug. However, the amount of cannabis cultivated was significant and that had the potential to cause significant harm if it had made its way into the Australian community.
9. Paragraphs 8.1.1(1)(e) and (f): The Applicant fell to be sentenced as a person without prior convictions. The Tribunal accepts that there is no increasing seriousness or repeated offending, but does note that the cultivation charge was protracted, and occurred over a six-month period.
10. Paragraphs 8.1.1(1)(g) and (h): There is no evidence that the Applicant provided false or misleading information to the Department, nor has he re-offended since being formally warned of the consequences on his migration status. The offence was not committed in another country (paragraph 8.1.1.(1)(i)).
11. Having regard to the above, the Tribunal concludes that the Applicant's offending was very serious. He played a leading role in the cultivation of a commercial quantity of cannabis in two properties across Melbourne, which led to the seizure of 215.8kg of cannabis. Although he is a person without prior convictions, the Tribunal considers the Applicant's role in the offending conduct and the quantities involved means that the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct is significant. Accordingly, these matters weigh very heavily against the Applicant in the balancing exercise.

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

(1) In considering the need to protect the Australian community (including individuals, groups or institutions) from harm, decision-makers should have regard to the Government's view that the Australian community's tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. Some conduct and the harm that would be caused, if it were to be repeated, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable. > > (2) In assessing the risk that may be posed by the non-citizen to the Australian community, decision-makers must have regard to, cumulatively: > > a) the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct; and > > b) the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account: > > i. information and evidence on the risk of the non-citizen reoffending; and > > ii. evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since their most recent offence (noting that decisions should not be delayed in order for rehabilitative courses to be undertaken). > > c) where consideration is being given to whether to refuse to grant a visa to the non-citizen - whether the risk of harm may be affected by the duration and purpose of the non-citizen's intended stay, the type of visa being applied for, and whether there are strong or compassionate reasons for granting a short stay visa.

2. The Applicant filed in excess of twenty documents with the Tribunal outlining his personal circumstances, plans for the future, letters of explanation for his offending, and steps he has taken to change himself.[55] In one of those documents, titled 'Court Review Response', he outlines his own personal assessment of his risk of recidivism.[56]
3. He writes that he is a very low risk of reoffending as he now has the skills, awareness and a support system he did not have before.[57] He said he has his family, wife, children, friends and community around him and they are providing support to him.[58] He said he has no reason, need or temptation to commit crimes and that he has too much to lose if he did.[59]
4. In another document he wrote that he has 'shown clear remorse, undertaken behavioural change courses, and completed vocational training.'[60] He said there is no ongoing risk to the community as he has maintained a clean record whilst incarcerated, and has severed ties with past criminal associates.[61] He said he has a clear future plan, with offers of ongoing employment, and wants to live a quiet life centred around family, work and responsibility.[62]
5. The Respondent's submission is that the Tribunal ought to take a cautious approach when assessing the Applicant's risk. It is submitted that paragraph 8.1.2(1) of the Direction explains that the community's tolerance for risk is inversely related to the seriousness of a person's offending, and in this case, the Applicant's offending should be regarded as very serious.[63] The Respondent also submits that the Tribunal ought to give limited weight to the Applicant's plea of guilty as evidence of remorse, and that his statements in his request for revocation reveal no insight into the nature of the harm caused by drug offending.[64]
6. The Respondent also submits that the support of his family and friends was present prior to his offending and did not prevent the Applicant from offending. Further, while it is acknowledged that the Applicant has completed vocational courses whilst in prison, he has not undertaken any courses to address his criminal offending and the reasons for it.[65]
7. In assessing the need to protect the Australian community, the Tribunal has had regard to the Government's view that the Australian community's tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases.[66] If the Applicant were to repeat his criminal conduct, the harm that could be caused to the Australian community is unacceptable. The Tribunal has had regard to the very serious nature of the Applicant's criminal offending, its duration, and the amount of illicit drugs involved. The Applicant's actions in possessing precursor chemicals which are used in the manufacture of methylamphetamine is a serious matter and had the potential to cause harm to the Australian community had that shipment not been intercepted by police.
8. In assessing the Applicant's risk, the Tribunal must also have regard to, cumulatively, the matters identified at paragraph 8.1.2(2) of Direction 110, namely the nature of the harm, and the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct. Each of these is considered further below.
9. In regard to the nature of the harm, the Tribunal has already considered that drug offending, such as cultivating cannabis in a commercial quantity, would have a detrimental impact on individuals and the Australian community. This harm has the potential to cause physical, psychological and financial damage to the Australian community. The Applicant has recognised this in his written material to the Tribunal and the Tribunal accepts that he understands the negative impact that would be caused if the conduct were repeated.
10. In regard to the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, the Tribunal considers that his risk is low to moderate. The Tribunal has had regard to the information and evidence on the Applicant's risk, and evidence of rehabilitation achieved at the time of its decision.
11. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant underwent a Parole Suitability Assessment by Corrections Victoria on 20 August 2024 ('Parole Report').[67] The Parole Report (dated 9 September 2024) assessed the Applicant as suitable for parole.[68] The Adult Parole Board of Victoria granted the Applicant parole on 23 January 2025, which commenced on 8 April 2025.[69] At that time, the Applicant was taken into immigration detention where he has remained since.[70]
12. The Parole Report assessed the Applicant as a 'low-risk general offender' who has maintained satisfactory prison behaviour.[71] He was assessed as 'low risk' according to the Level of Service/Risk Need Responsibility (LS/RNR) assessment tool.[72] He scored 'very low' to 'low' across a range of risk factors on the LS/RNR histogram including criminal history, family/marital, alcohol/drug problem, procriminal attitude/orientation and antisocial pattern.[73] He scored 'high' on the companions risk factor however, as the Applicant was assessed as appearing 'easily influenced by negative companions.'[74] This risk was further reflected in the 'Attitude to offending' part of the Parole Report where the Applicant reported that he was 'growing marijuana and tried to help people to move stuff in a vehicle and hide them.'[75] The author of the report noted that the Applicant 'appeared to be minimising his part in the offending by explaining this decision to be "under the influence of people I know. They encouraged me into this job."'[76] The Tribunal notes that the LS/RNR assessment was administered in two further addendum Parole Reports dated 29 October 2024 and 16 December 2024.[77] On each occasion, the Applicant was assessed overall as 'low' risk, but again scored 'high' on the companions risk factor for each subsequent assessment.
13. In this respect, the author of the first Parole Report noted that the Applicant and his wife were residing together at the time of his offending. It is then noted that the Applicant's wife (Ms Nguyen) has a significant criminal record of her own, having been convicted for dealing in the proceeds of crime (over the sum of $1m) in 2009.[78] Ms Nguyen was sentenced to four years and nine months imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and six months.[79] This offending was put to Ms Nguyen during her cross-examination. The Respondent tendered a news article titled '$70m laundering scam puts six in jail' which described the offending and Ms Nguyen's role. During cross-examination, Ms Nguyen described her role in that offending as one of an 'administrative role' and that it was others in the company who took a lead role. It appeared to the Tribunal that she was downplaying her involvement - that she was somebody who just looked after the finances of the company - rather than someone who dealt with the proceeds of crime in excess of $1million. Ms Nguyen confirmed that she met the Applicant and formed a relationship with him after her release from prison in 2012.
14. The Parole Report noted that the Applicant committed his offending in the context of negative companions.[80] The Tribunal notes the Applicant's assurances that he has since cut ties with his co-offenders and wants to now focus on his family, children and his work. The Tribunal does not suggest that Ms Nguyen herself is a 'negative companion' but simply notes her prior conviction. The Applicant's relationship with her does not add to his risk. The Tribunal does however have some reservations about the Applicant's ability to not be negatively influenced by criminal associates in the future given he was so easily influenced by them for his previous offending. This was also a concern of the author of the Parole Report and as such a non-association condition was recommended which prohibited the Applicant from having contact with his co-offenders.[81]
15. The Tribunal also notes that to the Applicant's credit he has retained contact with prosocial contacts and has offers of employment from two friends, who provided written references on the Applicant's behalf and gave oral evidence. Mr Loi Nham advised that he would be willing to offer the Applicant work as a handyman and provided a written 'Employment Agreement' to the Tribunal.
16. Mr Quang Dang also provided a written reference and gave evidence to the Tribunal that he would be willing to employ the Applicant in an assistant real estate agent role and provided a 'Real Estate Agency Conjunction Agreement'.[82] The 'conjunction agent' role was said to be subject to certain qualifications and certifications such as the Applicant holding the prescribed qualifications and providing a satisfactory police check.[83] When cross-examined as to whether someone with the Applicant's convictions would be permitted to hold a real estate licence, Mr Dang would not commit to an answer, but did indicate a criminal record would not stop him from working at the real estate agency business in an 'administrative role'.
17. The Tribunal has also had regard to the Applicant's vocational training he undertook prior to his arrest, and during his time in prison. Prior to his arrest, the Applicant had completed vocational training in building and construction and completed various real estate courses.[84] Whilst in prison, the Applicant obtained a Certificate II qualification in Horticulture and completed some units towards other vocational programs.[85]
18. He did not provide any evidence that he has undergone any psychological treatment or undertaken rehabilitative courses designed at reducing risk of reoffending. File notes from the Applicant's time in custody reflect that the Applicant was engaged in regular work, focussed on health and fitness, and maintained regular contact with his family and legal representatives.[86] The Applicant did provide character references from friends, including a social worker that has been supporting the Applicant's wife and family since 2014.[87]
19. The Tribunal has regard to the Parole Reports and assessments against the LS/RNR tool which assessed the Applicant has a low risk of reoffending. The Tribunal does note however that the Applicant scored high on the companions risk factor which is of concern. The Applicant told the Tribunal he has cut ties with his co-offenders which the Tribunal accepts. However, the Tribunal remains concerned that the Applicant may be susceptible to negative influences, as previously indicated in the Parole Report. The Applicant engaged in criminal offending over a protracted period of time, and which involved many co-offenders who were known to the Applicant. More importantly, the Applicant had the protective factors of his wife and children at the time, and this did not deter him from offending. He told the Tribunal he was badly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, and that he felt financial pressure to provide for his family. As the Respondent noted however in closing submissions, this was inconsistent with the material in the police brief which reflected the Applicant owned multiple properties across Melbourne, owned luxury goods, and was spending tens of thousands of dollars at Crown Casino. If the Applicant felt financial pressure again, the Tribunal is not confident he would resist the urge to engage in illegal behaviour once again.
20. The Tribunal therefore determines that the Applicant is at a low to moderate risk of reoffending. The Tribunal has already determined that the nature of the harm that would be caused if the conduct were repeated would be detrimental and cause harm to the Australian community.
21. The Tribunal concludes that the risk of the Applicant engaging in further offences is low to moderate, but the harm that would be caused is unacceptable. This weighs against the Applicant, given the serious nature of the offences he committed.
22. The Tribunal considers that primary consideration one weighs very heavily against revoking the mandatory cancellation decision. The Tribunal has attributed this primary consideration greater weight in the balancing exercise, which is consistent with the Principles of Direction 110 which state that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government.[88] Although the risk of reoffending might be considered low to moderate, the nature of the harm that would be caused if the conduct were repeated, is so serious that any risk it may be repeated is unacceptable.[89]

Primary consideration 2: Family violence committed by the non-citizen

1. This primary consideration applies in circumstances where the non-citizen has been convicted, found guilty or had charges proven that involve family violence.
2. The Applicant has not been found guilty of any family violence offences. This primary consideration is not relevant to the Applicant's circumstances. It is given neutral weight in the balancing exercise.

Primary consideration 3: The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia

(1) Decision-makers must consider any impact of the decision on the non-citizen's immediate family members in Australia, where those family members are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely. > > (2) Where consideration is being given to whether to cancel a non-citizen's visa or whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of their visa, the decision-maker must also consider the strength, nature and duration of any other ties that the non-citizen has to the Australian community. In doing so, decision-makers must have regard to: > > a) how long the non-citizen has resided in Australia, including whether the non-citizen arrived as a young child, noting that: > > i. less weight should be given where the non-citizen began offending soon after arriving in Australia; and > > ii. more weight should be given to time the non-citizen has spent contributing positively to the Australian community > > b) the strength, duration and nature of any family or social links with Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia.

2. In his written materials, the Applicant relies on his connection to family and friends in Australia as demonstrating the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia.[90] He has also provided a support letter from Ms Kim Phuong which demonstrated his participation in Settlement Program run by Jesuit Social Services.[91] Ms Phuong reports that the Applicant is an active member of the Vietnamese Parenting Group, and has attended many charity functions organised by their program.
3. The Respondent accepts that affirming the non-revocation decision would have a negative impact on the Applicant's wife, daughter and stepdaughters.[92] The Respondent also accepts that the Applicant has resided continuously in Australia since his arrival in 2011 and that he has built up familial and social ties in that time.[93]
4. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant first arrived in Australia as a 39-year-old. He was born in Vietnam but migrated to Iceland in 1998, where he resided for approximately thirteen years before his arrival into Australia. The Applicant is a citizen of Iceland and holds a valid Icelandic passport.[94]
5. His wife, daughter and stepdaughters are all Australian citizens. The Applicant has also filed character references from friends who have known the Applicant for many years. Two of those witnesses gave character evidence on the Applicant's behalf and each have made firm offers of employment to the Applicant should he be released into the community.[95] The Applicant's niece has also loaned the Applicant the sum of $10,000 to help him purchase a vehicle and tools so he can work again as a handyman and help his family.[96]
6. The Applicant has also previously volunteered at a Buddhist temple in St Albans and has assisted with maintenance duties in the past.[97] Khanh Dung Bui wrote in a character reference that the Applicant and his wife always go to the temple together and the Applicant willingly helps others when they need it.[98]
7. Her Honour Justice Derrington recently held in Siale v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship that paragraph 8.3 of Direction 110 directs the decision-maker's consideration of a non-citizen's ties to Australia in two ways:[99]

First, it directs attention to the impact of a non-citizen's removal on immediate family members who are Australian or who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia. Secondly, it directs attention to the impact on the non-citizen of the loss of any other ties to the Australian community. This two-pronged interpretation is evident from the text and structure of paragraph 8.3. Paragraph 8.3(1) refers specifically to "any impact of the decision on the non-citizen's immediate family members." By contrast, paragraph 8.3(2) directs a decision-maker to consider the strength of the ties that the non-citizen has to the Australian community, having particular regard to the length of time the non-citizen has resided in Australia, including whether he or she arrived as a young child, and considering when the non-citizen's offending began. > > (Emphasis in original).

8. It was held that paragraph 8.3(2) of the Direction 'requires an assessment of the strength, duration and nature of any family or social links from the perspective of the non-citizen.'[100] Paragraphs 8.3(1) and (2) of Direction 110 are dealt with below.

Impact of the decision on the Applicant's immediate family members

1. The immediate family members that would be impacted by a non-revocation decision are the Applicant's wife, daughter and two stepdaughters. Each of these family members are Australian citizens.

(a) The Applicant's wife: Ms Nguyen gave written and oral evidence to the Tribunal regarding how she would be impacted by a non-revocation decision. She wrote that whilst her husband has been serving his prison term she has had to stay home to care for the children on her own.[101] She wrote that she has lived alone to raise her three children, and has not been able to work.[102] She relies on her husband to help raise the children and that her family desperately need the Applicant back at home with her family. She is devastated at the thought of future separation.[103] > > (b) The Applicant's biological daughter (Child B): The Applicant's daughter wrote a letter of support for her father. She said she misses her father dearly and that since primary school they have been apart.[104] She said their interactions have been limited to phone calls, but it is not the same as having him physically in her life. She said that his guidance has made her a better person and she is grateful for the values and lessons he has taught her. She said it has been five long years since she has seen him and she wants to experience the joy of having the Applicant in her life to share moments and create new memories together.[105] > > (c) The Applicant's stepdaughter (Child A): Child A is the Applicant's minor stepdaughter. She wrote a letter of support for the Applicant and said she misses having a father figure in her life. She said she grew up with her mum and sister, and when the Applicant entered their lives, it was a happy moment. Her family was able to experience what having a full family felt like. She misses the Applicant, especially during her final year of high school. She notes his absence for memorable moments such as music performances and graduation, and has asked the Tribunal to consider her position, as the Applicant's 'daughter', and to grant the Applicant his visa.[106] > > (d) The Applicant's eldest stepdaughter: The Applicant's eldest stepdaughter is currently 19 years of age. She wrote a letter in support of the Applicant.[107] She said the Applicant has transformed her family and that she believes his return would have a deeply positive impact on their lives.[108] She said when the Applicant was taken away, it was incredibly difficult for her mother. She knows the Applicant has made mistakes in the past, but she says the Applicant has learned from these mistakes and understands the impact they have had on their family. She said she believes he deserves an opportunity to come home and be the father that she and her sisters need.[109]

2. The Tribunal has had regard to the impact a non-revocation decision would have on the Applicant's immediate family members as detailed above. The Tribunal considers that they would be significantly impacted by a non-revocation decision. The Tribunal gives this strong weight in the Applicant's favour.

Strength, nature and duration of any other ties the Applicant has to the Australian community

1. The Tribunal has had regard to the strength, nature and duration of other ties the Applicant has to the Australian community. The Tribunal has had regard to the many character references filed on behalf of the Applicant and notes he has formed strong ties to Australia through his work and connections in the local Vietnamese community.
2. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant completed components of study towards a building and construction course and gained certain qualifications in real estate. The Tribunal has considered the Applicant's ties to his community, and the offers of employment as a handyman and in real estate.
3. Mr Quang Minh Dang gave written and oral evidence to the Tribunal that he has known the Applicant as an 'authentic and trustworthy friend' since 2014.[110] He said they share a passion for real estate and have enjoyed working together in the past. He said that over the years they have maintained a strong bond and he can attest to the love and connection the Applicant and his family share.[111]
4. Mr Loi Van Nham also gave written and oral evidence to the Tribunal in support of the Applicant. He said that the Applicant used to work with him and he has known him for many years. He has undertaken to offer the Applicant employment as a handyman if he is returned to the community and believes he will not let him down.[112]
5. Ms Phi Do wrote that she and Ms Nguyen have been friends for over twenty years and she can see that the Applicant is a good husband and caring father.[113] Khanh Dung Bui wrote that he has known the Applicant for more than ten years and he has always proven himself to be a good person.[114] He said that the Applicant regularly goes to the temple and is always willing to help others when they need it.[115] Ngan Mai also wrote a letter in support of the Applicant and said that the Applicant has stepped in to assist in raising Ms Nguyen's children, and that without the Applicant, Ms Nguyen will have to raise three children on her own.[116]
6. The Tribunal has had regard to the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's other ties to Australia. The Tribunal has had regard to the time the Applicant has spent in Australia contributing positively to the Australian community.[117] It is noted that the Applicant arrived in February 2011 and was able to contribute positively through his work and family life before his offending began in July 2019. The Tribunal accepts that he has built up strong ties to the Australian community.
7. On balance, this primary consideration is given strong weight in the Applicant's favour. The Tribunal understands that the Applicant's ties now act as a protective factor in the Applicant's rehabilitation and has given this appropriate weight in his favour. However, it is given less weight in the balancing exercise than the primary considerations which are against revocation. This is because the Applicant's strong familial ties did not prevent him from engaging in criminal behaviour in the past. Nor did the Applicant's ties to his work and community. The Tribunal notes that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government and, as such, the weight attributed to primary consideration one outweighs the weight attributed to this primary consideration.[118]

Primary consideration 4: Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision

1. Paragraph 8.4(1) states that decision-makers must make a determination about whether cancellation or refusal under s 501, or non-revocation under s 501CA is, or is not, in the best interests of a child affected by the decision. Paragraph 8.4(2) provides that this consideration only applies if the child is, or would be, under 18 years at the time of the decision. Paragraph 8.4(3) provides that if there are two or more relevant children, the best interests of each child should be given individual consideration to the extent that their interests may differ.
2. Paragraph 8.4(4) sets out the factors that must be considered, where relevant, in considering the best interests of the child. They are:

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

3. There are two minor children in Australia that would be affected by a non-revocation decision under s 501CA. They are the Applicant's 17-year-old stepdaughter (Child A) and the Applicant's biological 11-year-old daughter (Child B).

1. Child A is the biological daughter of Ms Nguyen. The Tribunal has considered the following factors, where relevant, in relation to her best interests.
2. The Applicant is Child A's stepfather. She was approximately four years old when her mother met the Applicant, and six years old when they got married. The relationship is parental in nature. Ms Nguyen gave evidence that Child A still has a relationship with her biological father, although Ms Nguyen's evidence was that the relationship is not close. Child A was 12 years old when the Applicant was arrested. He has not returned to the family home since that time. Ms Nguyen gave evidence that Child A has not visited the Applicant in prison or immigration detention, but that is because she is busy with her own life and her studies. The Tribunal gives the nature and duration of this relationship some weight in the Applicant's favour (paragraph 8.4.(4)(a)).
3. Child A is due to turn 18 in a few months. The Tribunal has taken this into account and gives this very limited weight in the Applicant's favour (paragraph 8.4.(4)(b)).
4. The Tribunal has taken into account the impact of the Applicant's prior conduct on Child A. The Tribunal considers that the impact on Child A would have been negative as the Applicant's prior conduct resulted in the Applicant's arrest and removal from the family home where she resided. Child A would have been at the age where she had some awareness of what was happening when her stepfather was arrested, and the Tribunal has taken this into account (paragraph 8.4.(4)(c)).
5. The Tribunal notes the evidence of Ms Nguyen that Child A has not visited the Applicant in prison or immigration detention. Ms Nguyen gave evidence that Child A speaks to the Applicant by phone when she is able to after school and on weekends. The Tribunal accepts that any future separation would negatively impact Child A to some degree but does note that they could maintain contact via electronic means as they do now, and as they have done since the Applicant's arrest almost five years ago (paragraph 8.4.(4)(d)).
6. Child A's mother, Ms Nguyen, already fulfills a parental role in her life. Child A is also in limited contact with her biological father. Child A's older sister (aged 19) also resides at the family home. The Tribunal finds that there are people who fulfill a parental role in Child A's life, although it is accepted that the Applicant fulfills a parental role as stepfather and has taken this into account in the Applicant's favour (paragraph 8.4.(4)(e)).
7. Child A has written a letter in support of the Applicant. She wrote that she missed having a father figure in her life and that was fulfilled when the Applicant met her mother. She expressed that she was finally able to feel what a full family felt like. She wrote she sees the happiness on her mother's face since the Applicant has come into their lives. She expressed sadness at not having the Applicant present for important events since he was incarcerated, and she wishes he would be granted a visa to remain with the family. The Tribunal has taken note of Child A's views. The Tribunal gives this factor strong weight in the Applicant's favour (paragraph 8.4.(4)(f)).
8. There is no evidence that Child A has been or is at risk of family violence. There is also no evidence that she has suffered or experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from the Applicant's conduct (paragraphs 8.4.(4)(g) and (h)). These factors are not relevant to the Tribunal's consideration.
9. Weighing up the factors listed at paragraph 8.4.(4) of Direction 110, the Tribunal finds that it would be in Child A's best interests for the cancellation decision to be revoked.

1. Child B is the biological daughter of the Applicant and Ms Nguyen. Child B was six years old when the Applicant was arrested. Ms Nguyen gave evidence that Child B has visited the Applicant two times whilst he has been in immigration detention. He speaks to her on the phone after school and on weekends. The Tribunal has taken the nature and duration of the relationship between Child B and the Applicant into account and has afforded this strong weight in the Applicant's favour (paragraph 8.4.(4)(a)).
2. Child B is currently 11 years old and the Tribunal has had regard to the length of time until she turns 18. The Applicant and Ms Nguyen remain married, and the Applicant is likely to play a positive role in her future. The Tribunal has given this factor strong weight in the Applicant's favour (paragraph 8.4.(4)(b)).
3. The Tribunal has taken into account the impact of the Applicant's prior conduct on Child B. The Applicant's prior conduct resulted in his arrest almost five years ago. He has been absent from the family home since that time. Any future criminal conduct would likely result in future separation in the years until she turns 18. The Tribunal has taken this into account (paragraph 8.4.(4)(c)).
4. The Tribunal acknowledges that any future separation from the Applicant would negatively impact Child B. The Tribunal notes that they have remained in contact primarily through electronic means, and notes this can of course continue if the Applicant is removed from Australia. The Tribunal acknowledges however that physical separation would negatively impact Child B and deprive her of a father figure in her life and gives this strong weight in favour of revoking the cancellation decision (paragraph 8.4.(4)(d)).
5. Ms Nguyen already fulfills a parental role in the life of Child B as her mother. In addition, Child B is supported by her older stepsiblings, who also step in and fulfill a supportive role in her life. Child B's eldest stepsibling wrote a letter in support of the Applicant and stated that she feels a strong sense of responsibility to take care of the family, especially in the Applicant's absence.[119] She said she understands what it was like to grow up without a father and it pains her to think that Child B might have to experience the same.[120] The Tribunal acknowledges the eldest stepsibling's views that the Applicant's return would provide much needed emotional and practical support to Child B, and gives this strong weight in the Applicant's favour (paragraph 8.4.(4)(e)).[121]
6. The views of Child B are known as she has written a letter in support of her father.[122] The Tribunal is also in receipt of cards and drawings from Child B to her father.[123] Child B wrote that she has grown up without him, and although there were phone calls, it really wasn't the same as having him physically in her life.[124] She said that if her father were present, she believes it would make a 'significant difference' and that he would be able to support the family and her mother who currently works hard to support her and her two sisters. The cards and drawings demonstrate that Child B loves and misses her father. The Tribunal gives this strong weight in the Applicant's favour (paragraph 8.4.(4)(f)).
7. There is no evidence that Child B has been or is at risk of family violence. There is no evidence that she has suffered or experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from the Applicant's conduct. These factors are not relevant to the Tribunal's consideration (paragraphs 8.4.(4)(g) and (h)).
8. This primary consideration falls in the Applicant's favour. The Tribunal accepts that it would be in the best interests of Child A and Child B for a revocation decision to be made. The Tribunal has had regard to some key features of each of the assessments and has decided to attribute this primary consideration substantial weight in the Applicant's favour.
9. The weight afforded to this primary consideration is moderately tempered because the Tribunal notes that Child A is almost 18 years of age and has had no physical contact with the Applicant since his arrest. Child A already has people in her life that fulfill a parental role, and the Tribunal takes this into account. Child B, according to the evidence of Ms Nguyen, has only visited the Applicant twice whilst he has been in immigration detention. The Applicant has been in prison or immigration detention for almost half of Child B's life. Nonetheless the Tribunal accepts that a non-revocation decision would significantly impact both Child A and Child B and gives this substantial weight in the Applicant's favour.
10. This primary consideration is given less weight than primary consideration one. Direction 110 provides that primary consideration one is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations and the Tribunal has adopted that approach in this case because of the factors identified above.[125]

Primary consideration 5: Expectations of the Australian community

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

2. The Tribunal has considered the expectations of the Australian community as set out in paragraph 8.5 of Direction 110. The Tribunal must proceed on the basis of the Australian Government's views as articulated in the Direction, without independently assessing the community's expectation in a particular case.[126]
3. The Tribunal has concluded that the Applicant's conduct is very serious. The Applicant pleaded guilty to Possessing precursor chemicals and Cultivating a commercial quantity of cannabis. The quantities involved in both those charges is significant. The total amount of cannabis seized totalled 215.8kg. This is a significant amount considering that the commercial quantity at the relevant time was 25kg.[127]
4. The Applicant clearly played a leading role in the cannabis cultivation enterprise. The sentencing judge described his involvement as 'organisational' and that he was 'actively involved.'[128] The cannabis cultivation was protracted and took place over a six-month period. The sentencing judge noted that dealing in large quantities of drugs will necessarily attract lengthy terms of imprisonment in order to deter others from engaging in similar conduct.[129] The sentencing judge was aware of the prospect of deportation and accepted, as part of the sentencing synthesis, that this was an additional hardship which was taken into account.[130] The sentencing judge also took into account the plea of guilty, the Applicant's prospects for rehabilitation (which were described as 'quite reasonable') and his lack of prior convictions and family support.[131] Having taken all those matters into account, the Applicant received a total effective sentence of five years and three months imprisonment. On any view this is a significant sentence. The sentencing judge stated that '(t)he profits to be made from this sort of enterprise are likely to be considerable but it must be appreciated in the wider community that the risks of engaging in such an enterprise simply are not worth it.'[132]
5. The Tribunal has had regard to the terms of the Direction, and in particular, paragraph 8.5(2) which notes that non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of a visa may be appropriate simply because of the nature of the character concerns or offences is such that the Australian community would expect that such a person should not be granted or continue to hold a visa.[133] These expectations apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.[134]
6. The Respondent submits that the Tribunal should assign significant weight to this primary consideration.[135]
7. Having regard to the expectations of the Australian community as articulated in the Direction, and keeping in mind the principles set out at paragraph 5.2 (in particular paragraphs (2) and (3)), the Tribunal has decided to attribute this primary consideration significant weight against revoking the cancellation decision.
8. It is afforded significant weight because of the nature of the criminal conduct and the Applicant's role in that conduct. The offences have been characterised by the Tribunal as very serious, and the Australian community would expect that a person who has engaged in such serious conduct would not be allowed to remain in Australia.

Other consideration 1: Legal consequences of the decision

1. Paragraph 9.1 provides that decision-makers should be mindful that unlawful non-citizens are, in accordance with s 198, liable for removal from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable in the circumstances specified in that section. This other consideration then considers non-citizens who are covered by a protection finding (as defined in s 197C of the Act), and those who are not.
2. The Applicant has not made any claims relevant to this other consideration. Nor does the evidence indicate that this other consideration is relevant to the Applicant's circumstances, aside from the intended legal consequences that a non-revocation decision would have. Accordingly, this other consideration is given neutral weight in the balancing exercise.

Other consideration 2: Extent of impediments if removed

1. Paragraph 9.2 provides that decision-makers must consider the extent of any impediments that the non-citizen may face if removed from Australia to their home country, in establishing themselves and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country).
2. Decision-makers must take into account:

(a) The non-citizen's age and health; > > (b) Whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers; and > > (c) Any social, medical and/or economic support available to them in that country.

3. The Applicant is to be returned to Iceland if the visa cancellation decision is not revoked. The Applicant had previously resided in Iceland for 13 years and is a citizen of that country. The Respondent submits that any impediments he may face upon his return to Iceland will be limited because:[136]

(a) The Applicant is in his mid-fifties and does not suffer from any serious health conditions; > > (b) He previously lived in Iceland for over a decade and had supported himself and started a family. The Respondent submits that, as a result, it can be inferred he would not face any substantial linguistic or cultural barriers, or difficulty earning an income if he were returned; and > > (c) He is a citizen of Iceland and would have the same rights to social, medical and economic support that is available to other citizens of that country.

4. As a consequence, the Respondent submits this other consideration should be afforded minimal weight in the balancing exercise.[137]
5. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant's ex-partner and two adult children reside in Iceland.[138] The Applicant agreed under cross-examination, that by virtue of living there for so many years, he does have social connections in that country. He told the Tribunal that he travelled from Iceland to Australia with one of his co-offenders. He also gave evidence that he travelled to Iceland (and other parts of Europe) in late 2018 to early 2019. He also has two siblings that reside in Germany whom he visited on that trip. He told the Tribunal he and his siblings are close.
6. The Applicant also gave evidence that he used to have various jobs in Iceland, as a handyman and on a farm (which he also described as a 'factory'). The Tribunal is of the view that a person with the Applicant's skills could regain employment in Iceland, and would have access to the same social, medical and/or economic support available to citizens of that country.
7. The Applicant did not provide any evidence that his age or health present an impediment to him returning to Iceland. Nor did he provide any evidence regarding any substantial language or cultural barriers, noting of course that the Applicant was able to live and work in Iceland for 13 years. The Applicant's two adult children and ex-partner reside there, so he would enjoy some family support upon his return.
8. In conclusion, the Tribunal gives this other consideration only very limited weight in the Applicant's favour. It is given very limited weight because the Applicant spent the majority of his adult years residing there and has two adult children in that country. In the Tribunal's view, the extent of impediments would be minimal. In accordance with the terms of the Direction, this other consideration is given less weight than the primary considerations.[139]

Other consideration 3: Impact on Australian business interests

1. Paragraph 9.3(1) provides that decision-makers must consider any impact on Australian business interests if the non-citizen is not allowed to enter or remain in Australia.
2. There are no known impacts on Australian business interests to consider under this other consideration, nor has the Applicant raised any. It is given neutral weight in the balancing exercise.

1. The Tribunal has considered the Applicant's representations and the considerations set out in Direction 110. The Tribunal is required to carry out an evaluative exercise of weighing and balancing the various considerations in order to determine whether it is satisfied that there is 'another reason' to revoke the cancellation decision.[140]
2. Direction 110 notes that in some circumstances, the nature of the non-citizen's conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not revoking a mandatory cancellation.[141]
3. The Tribunal notes in this case that primary considerations three and four are in the Applicant's favour. However, it has also been made clear that they are not outweighed by primary consideration one. Primary consideration five also weighs significantly against the Applicant. The Applicant played a key role in the cultivation of 215.8kg of cannabis. He was also found to have a proprietary interest in large amounts of precursor chemicals which are commonly used for the manufacture of methylamphetamine. Direction 110 makes it clear that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government and that non-citizens who have engaged in criminal or other serious conduct should expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the privilege of staying in Australia.[142]
4. The Tribunal considers that this is a case where the protection of the Australian community and the expectation of the Australian community should be given greater weight, even where the Applicant has been assessed as a low to moderate risk of reoffending. The Applicant's conduct is so serious that the Australian community would expect that a person such as the Applicant should not continue to hold a visa. This is so even in the face of strong countervailing considerations such as the strength, nature and duration of ties and the best interests of minor children affected by the decision.
5. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is another reason under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa.

[1] Direction No. 110 - Migration Act 1958 - Direction under section 499: Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA, 5.1(4) ('Direction 110').

[32] Ibid 49 [51] (a total of 1,332 days was declared).

[33] Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs (2022) 275 CLR 582 [22].

[44] Exhibit R1, 250. See pages 250 and following for similar quantities in relation to the other precursor chemicals.

[53] Ibid 713 (f/n 61) and 714 (f/n 62).

[55] That material is located at Exhibit R1 (720-805) and Exhibit R2.

[99] Siale v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FCA 608 [52] (Derrington J).

[126] FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs (2019) 272 FCR 454 [73]-[75] and [103]-[104]

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