1. The Applicant was born in New Zealand (NZ). He is the eldest of six children to his parents' union. The family emigrated in November 1997 (when the Applicant was 11 and had three minor siblings).[6] The remaining two siblings were born in Australia thereafter. Most of the Applicant's immediate family have obtained Australian citizenship and there are several extended family members resident in Australia.
2. The Applicant completed primary and secondary schooling in Australia, to Year 10, and then commenced vocational education and training, which he did not complete until much later in life.
3. The family spent six months living in Samoa between December 2003 and June 2004.
4. The Applicant was granted the special category visa at Kingsford Smith International Airport on 22 June 2004.
5. In January 2005, when the Applicant was 18, he and his then 16-year-old brother, were involved in a drunken brawl at the Skateboard Bowl in Redbank Plains (Ipswich).[7] They were subsequently charged with aggravated assault occasioning bodily harm and the Applicant initially dealt with by the District Court by way of probation and community service without conviction. Unfortunately, the Applicant did not comply with the terms of his probation, and he continued to appear before the Queensland Courts between 2005-2009 and 2014-2018 for various state offences committed between March 2005 and April 2018.
6. The Applicant commenced an intimate personal relationship with Ms LKAB at the end of 2007 (when he was 19 and living in Brisbane).[8] At that time, Ms LKAB had one child from a previous relationship (Mr DKBM, born January 2007). The Applicant and Ms LKAB have two biological children (Miss GCF, born October 2008, and Miss ANF, born January 2010). The children ordinarily resided with both parents during the period of the relationship. The relationship ceased in late 2019/early 2020 and the children lived with Ms LKAB thereafter.
7. Protection orders were made by the Magistrates Court of Queensland in February 2020 and November 2022, in favour of the ex-partner and children.[9]
8. On 31 March 2022, the Applicant was arrested following domestic violence offences committed against his stepson. This offending led to the Applicant's subsequent prosecution and incarceration (from 16 April 2022) for the 29 domestic violence offences committed between November 2007 and March 2022.[10]
9. The Applicant's criminal history is chronologically summarised in Annexure A.
10. On 13 September 2023, the Applicant was sentenced to a total effective sentence of seven (7) years' imprisonment by the Brisbane District Court. He had previously been sentenced to imprisonment in August 2006, March 2008, May 2009 and November 2009. However, those sentences were generally suspended or the Applicant released immediately to parole. Prior to 2022, the Applicant only served part of a day of imprisonment (until the rising of the court) on 14 March 2008.
11. The Applicant's special category visa was mandatorily cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act in November 2023. He made representations to the Minister seeking revocation of that decision.
12. The Applicant was released to parole on 15 April 2025,[11] and was taken into immigration detention pending the outcome of his request for revocation. The parole term expires on 15 April 2029.[12]
13. The applicant was notified of the reviewable decision by email to his then solicitor transmitted on 9 September 2025.[13] This notification package complied with the requirements of s 501G of the Migration Act and was a method of service prescribed by reg 5.02 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (Regulations) for persons in immigration detention.
14. The Applicant sought review of the delegate's decision within time on 14 September 2025.[14]
15. In accordance with s 500(6L) of the Migration Act, the Tribunal must determine the review application by 2 December 2025.

1. The parties appeared before the Tribunal on 20 and 21 November 2025. The hearing was hybrid, with the Applicant appearing by video link on 20 November 2025 and in-person on 21 November 2025. He was represented by Ms Tracy Thorp of counsel instructed by Phillips Crawford Lawyers, who both appeared by video-link. The Minister was represented by Mr Lucas Roosendaal of Sparke Helmore Lawyers, and he appeared in-person.
2. The following documents were marked as exhibits:

(a) Joint Hearing Bundle, including the parties' respective Statements of Facts, Issues and Contentions (634 pages) (Exhibit 1);

3. At the hearing of the review, the Applicant was advised, in simple terms, of his right to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination prior to his giving evidence.[15] He was reminded of that right throughout the hearing.
4. The Tribunal took oral evidence from the Applicant, his father, two siblings and two cousins. Two proposed witnesses did not give oral evidence, and their respective statements/statutory declarations were taken as being read subject to any submissions to be made as to weight.

1. The question for determination by the Tribunal is whether the decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of Mr Fetalaiga's special category visa is the 'correct or preferable decision' on the material before the Tribunal.[16]
2. Section 501CA(4) of the Migration Act provides that a mandatory cancellation may be revoked if:

(a) the Applicant makes representations in accordance with the invitation to do so given by the Minister under s 501CA(3); and > > (b) the decision-maker is satisfied that: > > > (i) the Applicant passes the character test (as defined by s 501); or > > > > (ii) there is another reason why the mandatory cancellation should be revoked.

3. In Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 27; (2022) 275 CLR 582, the majority of the High Court described this section of the Migration Act as conferring 'a wide discretionary power' to revoke a mandatory cancellation if the decision-maker (whether the Minister, their delegate, or the Tribunal on review of a delegate's decision) is satisfied that there is 'another reason' why the cancellation should be revoked.[17] The majority held that the assessment of whether there was, in fact, 'another reason' was to be undertaken by reference to the representations made by the Applicant.[18]
4. In reviewing decisions of this kind, the Tribunal must comply with Direction no. 110 - Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (the Direction)[19] given by the Minister under s 499(1) of the Migration Act.[20] This is a legislative constraint on the Tribunal's process of reasoning.[21] However, as the Full Court identified in Singh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (2023) 296 FCR 582,[22] the principles stated in Drake (No 2)[23] regarding the application of governmental policy, and the Tribunal's ability to depart from it, where appropriate, remain applicable.
5. Informed by the principles set out in cl 5.2 of the Direction, the Tribunal must 'take into account' the factors identified in cls 8 and 9 of the Direction (where relevant) in deciding the application.[24] In this review, those relevant factors are:

(a) the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct; > > (b) whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence; > > (c) the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia; > > (d) the best interests of minor children in Australia; > > (e) the expectations of the Australian community; > > (f) the legal consequences of the decision; > > (g) the extent of impediments if removed; and > > (h) impact on Australian business interests.

1. The Applicant was notified of the mandatory cancellation decision on 16 November 2023 by hand and whilst he was in Queensland custody.[25] This notice complied with requirements of ss 501CA(3) and 501CA(3A) of the Migration Act, read with reg 2.55(3)(a) of the Regulations.
2. Regulation 2.52(2)(b) provides that any representations seeking revocation of a mandatory cancellation decision must be made to the Minister within 28 days after the person is given notice of the mandatory cancellation.
3. Regulations 2.52(3) to 2.52(6) set out the way representations are to be made, including that they are to be in English (or accompanied by translation) and that they must include specified information, such as personal identifiers and 'a statement of the reasons on which the person relies to support the representations.'
4. The Applicant made representations seeking revocation of the cancellation decision within the specified timeframe, from 23 November 2023.[26] These representations complied with the content requirements of the Regulations.
5. Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Fetalaiga made representations in accordance with the invitation for the purposes of s 501CA(4)(a) of the Migration Act.

1. The Tribunal must decide whether the Applicant passes the character test as defined by s 501 of the Migration Act.[27] Failure to pass the character test arises as a matter of law.[28]
2. Section 501(6)(a) of the Migration Act sets out that a person does not pass the character test if 'the person has a substantial criminal record (as defined by subsection (7))'. The term 'substantial criminal record' includes when 'the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more_'_[29] and when they have been 'sentenced to 2 or more terms of imprisonment, where the total of those terms is 12 months or more'.[30]
3. It was common ground that the Applicant did not pass the character test by virtue of the sentences of imprisonment imposed by the District Court of Queensland on 13 September 2023.[31] The Tribunal agrees and notes the separate sentences of imprisonment imposed by the Queensland Courts on 22 August 2006 (12 months', suspended for 3 years), 20 May 2009 (12 months', suspended for 12 months; 7 days', suspended for 12 months), and 17 November 2009 (6 months' imprisonment, to be released on parole forthwith). These suspended sentences count for the purposes of the character test.[32]
4. The Tribunal finds that Mr Fetalaiga does not pass the character test found in s 501(6)(a) of the Migration Act because he has a 'substantial criminal record' as defined in ss 501(7)(c) and 501(7)(d) of the Migration Act.
5. The Tribunal is therefore not satisfied that the Applicant passes the character test for the purposes of s 501CA(4)(b)(i) of the Migration Act.

1. As the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant passes the character test, the Tribunal must then determine whether, having regard to the representations made by the Applicant, and to any relevant primary and other considerations contained within the Direction, there is 'another reason' why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked.

1. The Tribunal is required to consider whether the Australian community requires protection from harm said to have arisen from the criminal activity or other serious conduct engaged in by the Applicant to date, and from any risk of such harm arising in the future.[33] This is a two-stage process, requiring consideration of both the nature and seriousness of conduct to date, and the risk to the community if further offences are committed or the Applicant engages in other serious conduct.[34]
2. It should be noted at this juncture that the Tribunal is not sentencing Mr Fetalaiga for his past deeds. That has already happened. Rather, the Tribunal must assess whether his 'continued presence here would be opposed to the safety and welfare of the nation'.[35]
3. The concept of 'risk', and whether it is 'unacceptable', under cl 8.1 of the Direction is not the same thing as the 'likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct'.[36] For this purpose, an 'unacceptable risk' is a risk which the Tribunal considers to be 'unacceptable' having regard to a variety of considerations, including:

(a) the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's criminal offending and other conduct to date (including the sentences imposed by the courts for a crime or crimes); > > (b) the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct; and > > (c) the nature of the harm that could be caused by further offending.

4. The Direction informs the Tribunal's risk assessment, at cls 5.2, 8.1(1), 8.1.1(1) and 8.1.2(1), by reiterating, amongst other things, that the Executive Government:

(a) is committed to 'protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens'; > > (b) considers identified types of conduct to be 'very serious' or 'serious'; and > > (c) considers that 'the Australian community's tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases.'

5. It follows that the 'risk' referred to in the balancing exercise contemplated by those clauses of the Direction is not any risk that an applicant may commit further criminal or other serious conduct but is calibrated towards the Tribunal's assessment of the nature and degree of the harm said to be in prospect in the case at hand.

Nature and seriousness of the conduct to date

1. The Applicant's criminal and other serious conduct is summarised in Annexure A, including the sentences imposed by the courts for various offences. The Tribunal has not had regard to any separate offences that the Applicant was dealt with by way of infringement or to any of the criminal charges that were withdrawn by the State.[37]
2. It was common ground that the Applicant's offences on the indictment presented in the Brisbane District Court in September 2023 should be considered by the Tribunal as being very serious.[38] As was observed by the sentencing judge, Byrne KC DCJ, the 29 offences on the indictment occurred between November 2007 and March 2022 (with 17 separate occurrences giving rise to the 29 criminal charges).[39] All of the offending is of a domestically violent nature. The Tribunal finds that this conduct falls within the definition of 'family violence' in cl 4(1) of the Direction because it includes violent, threatening or other behaviour that coerces or controls a family member or causes them to be fearful. The offending occurred in two tranches: between December 2007 and June 2010 and between June 2019 and March 2022. Counts one to six were committed in breach of suspended imprisonment orders. Counts four to six were in breach of a protection/restraining order. By way of background, it was accepted that 'during the entire relationship, the [Applicant] verbally and physically assaults [Ms LKAB, and that he] also verbally and physically assaulted the children.'[40] The offending on the indictment was not reported until 2022 because Ms LKAB felt scared and embarrassed about the offending and feared the possible repercussions of reporting it.[41] Judge Byrne KC remarked that 'it is hardly necessary to say [the Applicant's] offending is abhorrent and serious'[42] and that 'it demonstrated on [the Applicant's] part on many occasions over that overall period a dominating petulant and violent attitude towards [his] relationship.'[43]
3. The balance of the Applicant's history includes:

(a) two aggravated assaults occasioning bodily harm (in January 2005 and March 2005, respectively); and > > (b) six convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol (twice on the same day in June 2007, and separate offences in September 2013, July 2016, September 2017 and April 2018) and one count of dangerous driving in October 2009.

4. The Tribunal's overall assessment of the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct to date is reinforced by cls 8.1.1(1)(a)(i) to (iii) of the Direction, which provides that the Australian Government and the Australian Community view violent crimes committed against women and children (including acts of family violence) as being very serious conduct.
5. The impact of family violence cannot be underestimated.[44] The Tribunal notes the '16 days in WA' campaign running until 10 December 2025,[45] where the Minister for Prevention of Family and Domestic Violence, the Hon Jessica Stojkovski MLA, remarked on 31 October 2025:

Violence against anyone is unacceptable. We need to challenge disrespect and harmful behaviours when we see them. Silence allows violence to continue. > > Everyone, regardless of gender, identity, ability, race and sexuality, has the right to live and work free from violence and harassment. To achieve this, we must address gender inequality and other forms of discrimination, because these create the social context in which violence against women and children occurs. > > Family and domestic violence takes many forms and can include physical, psychological, emotional, sexual and economic abuse. It is crucial that we acknowledge family and domestic violence as a societal problem that requires collective action. > > Family, domestic and sexual violence is not a women's issue. It must be tackled through a whole of community approach that holds victim-survivors at the centre and encourages and supports action and activism from women and men, boys and girls. > > Men and boys are a key part of the solution.

6. The Minister identified the significant physical, psychological, and emotional impacts the Applicant's family violence had upon his former partner and children.[46] The Applicant did not cavil with the proposition that he had caused significant physical and psychological harm to them.[47]
7. The Applicant's offending could be said to be frequent between 2007 to 2010, 2013 to 2014, 2016 to 2018 and 2019 to 2020. Whilst there was a noticeable gap in the family violence offences committed by the Applicant between 2011 and 2018, the continuation of that conduct means that gap pales into insignificance.[48] The District Court, however, accepted that the Applicant's family violence was 'slowing up somewhat' by March 2022.[49]
8. The Applicant's offending to date is cumulatively significant and demonstrative of a general disregard for the law.[50]
9. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant was given numerous warnings by the District Court of Queensland in July 2005,[51] August 2006,[52] March 2008,[53] and November 2009[54] that re-offending, including in a domestic violence context or by drink driving, would result in his immediate imprisonment. He was not aware that such offending could lead to his visa cancellation but that is of no moment.
10. The Tribunal was provided with a letter from Mr Andrew Schmidt, Senior Pastor at the VOC Grace Reformation Community Church in Brisbane dated 1 May 2024,[55] indicating the Applicant's attendance and participation at that church from 2020 and purported 'growth and change'.
11. The applicant was productive in Queensland custody, completing several vocational and rehabilitative courses.[56] There were no prison charges incurred between April 2022 and April 2025.
12. The Applicant was initially denied conditional release on parole in August 2024.[57] However, after completing the Low Intensity Substance Intervention (LISI) Programme in 2024, the Parole Board Queensland (PBQ) decided to approve his release on parole in April 2025.[58]
13. There are no known incidents from the Applicant's time in immigration detention. Much like his time in prison, he has used that time productively, including undertaking courses in 'positive parenting techniques', 'anger management techniques', 'domestic violence awareness' and SMART (Self-Management and Recovery Training) for addiction.[59]
14. For the above reasons, the Tribunal finds the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's criminal offending and other serious conduct to date to be very serious.

Risk to the Australian community should the Applicant engage in further conduct

1. The Tribunal is required to have regard to the future risk that may be posed by the Applicant to the Australian community by considering, cumulatively, the nature of the harm to individuals or to the community should the Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct, and the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in such conduct.[60]
2. There is no statutory constraint on the way that risk is assessed by the Tribunal other than that there must be a rational and probative basis for the assessment.[61]

1. The Applicant accepted that if he were to commit further violent offences the harm that would be caused is 'irrefutably significant, and may include physical, psychological, and/or injury or death.'[62] The Minister generally agreed with that assessment and added economic harm to the mix.[63]
2. Turning to harm caused by driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, in RQRP v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCA 266, McKerracher J observed that:

[48] It may also be accepted that there is a degree of separation in the committing of certain offences between the criminal act and any potential harm. Such offences encapsulate conduct that does not necessarily require an element of harm to another person to attract criminal sanction and can be distinguished from other crimes such as those involving direct violence where the harm arises immediately upon the doing of the act. It is clear that child pornography and drink-driving offences fall into the former category. However the critical feature of these acts is that they attract criminal sanction because committing them creates a greater risk that much more serious conduct that does cause direct and significant harm could result. ... In the case of drink-driving, the act poses an unacceptable risk to the life and wellbeing of other road users.

3. For the above reasons, the Tribunal finds that the nature of the harm to individuals or to the Australian community should the Applicant re-offend is variable, ranging from relatively minimal impact to potentially catastrophic impact. In the words of the Applicant's former solicitor, the nature of likely harm caused by repeated violent offending is 'irrefutably significant'. Further drink driving also has significant potential for harm.

1. The Applicant argued that he posed a low risk of re-offending given his acceptance of responsibility for his offending, participation in available programmes and strong family support.[64]
2. The Minister argued that the Tribunal should find that the Applicant posed a moderate/significant risk of re-offending and that this was 'unacceptable'.[65]
3. The Applicant has a poor compliance history with community-based orders, parole and restraining orders. However, he was on bail between 23 March 2022 and 16 April 2022 without reported incident.[66] His conduct in prison and immigration detention has been without incident. The Tribunal was told that there has been no engagement with Queensland Corrective Services (QCS) whilst the Applicant has been in immigration detention.
4. In September 2023, QCS assessed the Applicant as being a moderate risk of re-offending in a general way using the Risk of Re-offending- Prison Version actuarial screening tool.[67]
5. An Immediate Risk Needs Assessment was conducted with a QCS Psychologist on 11 April 2025.[68] No immediate risks or institutional needs were identified in that assessment.
6. The PBQ granted the Applicant conditional release on parole on 1 April 2025 (from 15 April 2025), and to the custody of the Australian Border Force. His parole order has 37 conditions, including programmatic requirements and specific conditions that:

(a) he not in any way, directly or indirectly, contact or communicate with the ex-partner or children (conditions (aa) to (dd)); > > (b) he must abstain from alcohol until otherwise issued a direction in relation to alcohol consumption by an authorised corrective services officer (condition (gg)); > > (c) he must not be in the company of a person under the age of 16 years unless accompanied by an adult as approved by an authorised corrective service officer and must not engage in written or electronic communication with any person under the age of 16, other than with those approved by an authorised corrective services officer (condition (ii)); and > > (d) he must report any personal or intimate relationships with anyone who has the care, custody or guardianship of a child, to an authorised corrective services officer at the commencement of the relationship (condition (jj)).

7. There is a clear link between the Applicant's substance use (particularly, alcohol) and his offending. The Applicant has completed programmatic intervention aimed at substance use, anger management and family violence. He has enrolled to complete further counselling with the Men's Information & Support Association (MISA) in Brisbane in November 2025.[69]
8. The Tribunal has some concerns about the Applicant's insight into his family violence. During the Tribunal hearing he was asked about his interactions with Pastor Schmidt as follows:

Counsel: Do you think that your prayer meetings with Pastor Andrew will help manage your alcohol use and violence? > > Applicant: Yes, he will definitely help me if he like he said to me if you ever come out, we can put your straight back to church community. He told me... that he wanted me to tell my story to all the youth people out there and explain to them what you did. So they do not have to go through what I did. And to help people too. > > ... > > Counsel: when you say that he would like you to talk to the young people to make sure they do not do the sorts of things that you did, is that something that you would like to deal with if you had the chance to speak? > > Applicant: Yes, 100%. Because I have to, because you know, I can say the same thing to my nieces and nephew as well and all the kids out there. So they do not go through what I went through and it is good to help as much as a I can. > > ... > > Applicant: Like any sorts of things, like say, like this kid has gone too far and he comes to church and he said, oh I had a bad day. You know, I can just make a prayer for him, you know, just tell him or, you know, be positive, do the right thing. Listen to your family you know; do not go find, find the right person to be with, you know. Do not be like me, you know. Do not become alcohol, do no do drugs. There's so many things I can teach those young youth kids out there, but definitely help them. Say things with my kids. That is, if I am allowed to see my kids in the future. > > ... > > Tribunal: I want to ask you about three things you have just told me. One, you said that you were asked by Mr Schmidt to preach to your youth group about what you did. What do you say you did? > > Applicant: ...the first thing I will say, look, I want to thank you for your support, I have done all horrible things, violence, alcohol, and then, you know, tell all the things I have done in the past. And then, after that, once it is all that's already been spoken about, about my past behind, that's when I can talk about preaching about the word of God from the Bible, preaching about the goodness of God; about becoming a man. I am not a man for what I have done; not a man to this day... > > Tribunal: The next thing that you said is that 'so they do not have to go through what I did'. What do you mean by that? > > Applicant: Like said that they do not have to become violent or aggressive or become anger or like so many things like I did; Like say it does not happen to them in the future. So year, I am sorry that I am not really good at speaking with my words, but I am just trying my best to bring it out of me. > > Tribunal: The last thing is that you made reference to talking to the youth, to help them, and one of the things you said is to 'find the right person who you are with', what did you mean by that? > > Applicant: Do not go with the people that, say for example, make sure that you do not go with people that have drug problem or domestic violence, like those families that have it. You know, make sure you find the good people around you, but make sure you do not go to those people that has a history, a bad past, like family domestic violence or like or anything... > > Tribunal: Well, I confess that I am somewhat confused by that Mr Fetalaiga, because you would fall into that category. > > Applicant: Yes > > Tribunal: And what am I to infer from your referring to that? Are you suggesting that your former partner had such a history as well? > > Applicant: No, my that is true. That is 100% true what you said. My ex partner is a really good person but her family has a domestic violence history because when I went with her, I have seen it all with my own eyes and I have seen what is happening in their family and it has happened to all of her siblings as well, from breaking up from their partners from DV. Even my ex-partner's mum. I have seen her husband did the same thing what I did. And that is the reason why I have said this to teach all the young ones to make sure you do not go through the family that has domestic violence. But I chose to go with this partner, but I did not expect that this family has a domestic violence because when I was going out with her, her family always have alcohol. Her family always party all the time. I have seen their kids been taken away from child safety. I have seen all sorts of things happen to this family. And I remember one of my mates said to me, I am pretty sure you can do better than this Junior. And I said, why is that you guys? Because this one of my mates he knew this family really well. And he said, you know, this family is, it is, like a curse. You know, this family is bad. But I did not listen to him because I decided to continue on, and to go with my ex-partner. But my ex-partner, she was different from all of them. She was the quiet one. She's the one that always does all the work...

9. The Applicant's family members testified to the Tribunal about the changes they have noticed in the Applicant between 2020 and 2022, and since he has been imprisoned or detained. He was employed on a casual basis between August 2021 and April 2022.[70]
10. For the above reasons, the Tribunal finds, on the evidence before it, that Mr Fetalaiga poses a low to moderate likelihood of re-offending. In particular, he has ongoing treatment needs relating to substance use and family violence. Steps have been taken to address those issues (especially, forced sobriety), but Mr Fetalaiga requires further supervision and support, particularly in a community setting.

Conclusion on the protection of the Australian community

1. The Tribunal finds the Applicant to pose a risk to the Australian community. It has found that:

(a) further involvement in family violence or driving under the influence of alcohol has potential for very serious harm; and > > (b) the Applicant poses a low to moderate likelihood of committing such conduct in the reasonably foreseeable future notwithstanding that he has been attending the rehabilitative courses available to him in prison or immigration detention.

2. The question that arises then is whether that risk is 'unacceptable'?
3. The Minister argued that the risk was unacceptable because of the potential for serious harm and the fact that the Applicant has long-standing substance use issues, had previously been non-compliant with court orders and because his recent abstinence had not been tested in the community.
4. The Direction contains policy guidance, at cls 5.2, 8.1(1), 8.1.2(1), to the effect that:

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 enter and/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 (cls 5.2(1), 8.1(1)); > > The safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government' (cls 5.2(2), 8.1(1)). 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 (cl 8.1(1)); > > 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 (cl 5.2(3)); > > The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they engaged in conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, that raises serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a [measurable] risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community (cl 5.2(4)); > > With respect to decisions to ... revoke cancellation 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 (cl 5.2(6)); > > 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 ... revoking a mandatory cancellation (cl 5.2(7)); > > The inherent nature of certain conduct such as family violence is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not ...revoking a mandatory cancellation... even if the information available at the time of consideration suggests that the non-citizen does not pose a [measurable] risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community (cl 5.2(8)); and > > In considering the need to protect the Australian community ... 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 (cl 8.1.2(1));

5. The Tribunal is authorised, but not bound, to give weight to the above policy guidance.[71] The Tribunal respectfully considers the policy considerations identified above to be appropriate, and to conform with the terms of the Migration Act and the nature of the power found in s 501 and its analogous provisions.
6. Mr Fetalaiga contravened the expectation that he be law-abiding and not cause or threaten harm to the Australian community. Whilst there is a level of tolerance afforded to him, as someone who arrived in Australia as a young person, that tolerance is offset by the nature of the conduct engaged over a very lengthy period and the risk of its repetition. The Tribunal has found that Mr Fetalaiga poses a low to moderate likelihood of re-offending in the reasonably foreseeable future. However, the most compelling factor in the risk assessment is the Applicant's parole order. That order expires in April 2029 and has very stringent conditions which are targeted towards the Applicant's risk factors. The PBQ can amend, suspend or cancel the parole order if they reasonably believe that he has failed to comply with the terms of the order, or he poses a serious risk of harm to someone else or poses an unacceptable risk of committing an offence, or if the Applicant is preparing to leave Queensland without permission (he is required to return to Queensland within two days of any release from immigration detention).[72] The PBQ have approved the Applicant to reside at his parents' address in Brisbane, were his visa to be restored. In those circumstances, the Tribunal finds that the risk posed by the Applicant in the reasonably foreseeable future is tolerable.
7. The Tribunal finds this primary consideration to weight against revocation but not determinatively.

Whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence

1. The parties agreed that this primary consideration was relevant because the Applicant has been convicted of offences which involve 'family violence' for the purposes of the Direction.[73]
2. The Tribunal repeats its observations in Re MBBG and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] ARTA 53 at [80]-[83] and [86].
3. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant has been convicted of conduct involving violent, threatening or other behaviour which coerces or controls a member of his family or causes them to be fearful. The indictment presented in the District Court and the surrounding background facts demonstrate that the Applicant has been involved in the perpetration of family violence against his then partner and children on a regular basis between late 2007 and 2020 (with a return to offending in March 2022).
4. For the avoidance of doubt, the Tribunal finds that the ex-partner and stepson are 'members of the [Applicant's] family' for the purposes of cl 4(1) of the Direction because they are persons who have had an intimate personal relationship with the Applicant.[74]
5. In assessing the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by Mr Fetalaiga, the Tribunal notes that:

(a) there is a pattern of frequency and a trend of increasing seriousness to the family violence conduct;[75] > > (b) the cumulative effect of repeated acts of family violence is demonstrated by the repetitive nature of the offences spanning over almost 20 years,[76] including that the ex-partner and children were forced to lie about some of the offending[77] and comments made by the sentencing judge to the effect that 'if you ever wondered why your son may show some episodic violence on occasion, you need only look at what you have exposed him to over many years';[78] > > (c) the Applicant has engaged in programmatic intervention since the last known act of family violence in March 2022, including: > > > (i) he admitted his guilt to the family violence offending on the indictment; > > > > (ii) understands that he has caused harm to his victims (and that his ex-partner and stepson may not like him because of his past conduct) but, in the Tribunal's view, has relatively limited/surface level understanding about the impact of his behaviour upon them, particularly each of his three children;[79] and > > > > (iii) he has taken considerable steps to address the factors which contributed to his conduct, particularly substance use and anger management, as evidenced by his completion in the Resilience Programme in December 2023, the 'Explore' programme with Drug Arm in February 2024, the Health Habits Group component of the LISI Programme in August 2024,[80] SMART Recovery in 2025,[81] various online courses[82] and enrolment with MISA;[83] > > (d) The Applicant has re-offended since being formally warned by the Queensland Courts about the consequences of further acts of family violence, including a warning from Richards DCJ on 17 November 2009 that: > > The breach of domestic violence is obviously something that has to be considered seriously, but given that you are only one month away from finishing the suspended sentence I find it would be unjust to impose the whole of the suspended sentence and instead I am sentencing you to part of that sentence; namely six months' imprisonment and I will order that you be released on parole immediately. Now, if you do anything like a breach of a domestic violence [restraining/protection order] in the next six months then you will go into goal on this parole breach. Do you understand this? All right. > > Each protection order was explained to the Applicant when he was served by the Queensland Police Service or when he was present in Court when the orders were made.[84]

6. The Australian Government's concerns are stated to be 'proportionate' to the seriousness of the family violence engaged in (cl 8.2(1)). The Tribunal finds that the Applicant has engaged in extensive acts of family violence, which has included physical violence (ranging from common assault to grievous bodily harm and choking) and coercive and controlling behaviour against both his former partner and their children, over an almost two-decade period. There have been recent steps taken towards rehabilitation and to deal with the underlying criminogenic needs. However, these steps do not detract from the seriousness of the conduct engaged, particularly in circumstances where the conduct was long-standing, continued and, in part, in breach of multiple orders made by the courts. Accordingly, the Government's 'serious concerns' are engaged to a considerable degree. This primary consideration weighs very heavily against revocation.

Strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia

1. The Tribunal is required to consider any impact of the decision on the Applicant's immediate family members in Australia.[85]
2. The Tribunal must also consider the strength, nature, and duration of any other ties that the Applicant has to the Australian community, having regard to how long he has resided in Australia,[86] and 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'.[87]

1. The Applicant's 'immediate family members'[88] in Australia comprise:

(a) his two daughters; > > (b) his parents; and > > (c) his five siblings.

2. Each of the above family members are either permanent/indefinite residents or Australian citizens.
3. The Applicant testified that he wanted nothing further to do with his ex-partner or stepson. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that they are not immediate family members for the purposes of this primary consideration.
4. In any event, the Applicant is prohibited by the terms of a protection order from approaching or contacting the ex-partner (until November 2027).[89] That order also requires the Applicant 'be of good behaviour and not commit associated domestic violence against' the children or expose them to domestic violence.
5. The Applicant is separately prohibited by the terms of his parole order from contacting or communicating with the ex-partner or any of the children (including his two daughters) in any way (whether directly or indirectly) (until April 2029). Whilst those conditions may be amended/varied/removed by the PBQ,[90] they remain in force and with good reason.
6. The Applicant has extensive extended family in Australia, including cousins and nieces/nephews, and the Tribunal has considered the impact of a decision upon them in the context of the second question (strength, nature and duration of other ties) and the best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision (where relevant).
7. The Applicant's father testified that the Applicant's family in Australia would be devasted if the Applicant was to be expelled from the country. He referred to health struggles of his wife and himself and how he was reliant on one of the Applicant's brothers around the house and how they could use the Applicant's physical assistance. They were supportive of the Applicant returning to live with them.
8. The Applicant's sister testified along similar lines. She said the Applicant's removal would be 'very sad for our family, especially our parents' and referred to the Applicant's previous familial assistance. She said that the Applicant had only met one of her two children, when this nephew was only an infant, since his incarceration in April 2022. The sister also spoke about the family business, Winza Tree Lopping (ABN 70 864 838 501), established in March 2024 by one of the Applicant's brothers, their father and by her. How they were willing to offer the Applicant work in that business to help him with finance and to give him a way to/from work. Both the sister and father expressed concern about the Applicant being in NZ with limited familial support. She was concerned that their parents might decide to move to NZ to be with the Applicant (should he be successful in having his visa restored and notwithstanding their health conditions) and that this would then cause hardship for the rest of their family resident in Australia.
9. One of the Applicant's brothers testified after the sister. He spoke about how the Applicant's absence has affected each of their family and remarked that his absence has been noticeable at family events and at church. He told the Tribunal that he moved in with their parents to provide them with assistance because of the Applicant's incarceration.
10. The Tribunal heard oral evidence from two of the Applicant's cousins:

(a) Mr Sunny Faalelei and his sister, Ms Ane Scanlon. Mr Faalelei works for the Department of Youth Justice and Victim Support (Qld). The Applicant was living with him between 2021 and April 2022. He referred to the Applicant 'changing' during that period, by stopping his drinking and engaging with their church. He described the Applicant as a 'very valued person in our family' and how his removal would have a huge impact on their extended family. He said that the Applicant was 'quite close' with his daughters and that he had been the daughters' Sunday School teacher between 2021-2022. He told the Tribunal that he was the 'contact person' between the Applicant and his ex-partner during 2021-2022 for pick up/drop offs. Mr Faalelei testified that Miss ANF 'has had moments where she has been really down and depressed' but that he has not shared this with the Applicant because he did not want him to feel bad. He had no knowledge of the Applicant's parole conditions. > > (b) Ms Scanlon works for the Department of Families, Seniors, Disability Services and Child Safety (Qld) as a 'Child Safety Support Officer'. She told the Tribunal in writing that she had been providing the Applicant with regular updates about his daughters because she was 'aware of how much he wishes to be reunited with them'.[91] She testified that she regularly keeps in touch with the Applicant's daughters on social media 'to encourage family connection' though she was aware 'obviously, with the current situation and the wishes of their mother'. Ms Scanlon was asked by the Applicant's counsel whether she had spoken to the daughters about their wishes with respect to the Applicant and she said she had on occasion, but it was a 'touchy subject' around their cousins (her children). She opined that they would like to see their father. Ms Scanlon had no real knowledge of the Applicant's offending or of the terms of his parole conditions. Lastly, Ms Scanlon advanced a claim to the effect that the Applicant's daughters identify as being 'both Indigenous and Polynesian, and [that] it is vital for their wellbeing, healing and cultural identity that their relationship with their father is preserved here in Australia.'[92]

11. None of the Applicant's family members, whether immediate or extended, had any real knowledge of the Applicant's criminal history or the extent of his domestic violence. Nevertheless, it was clear to the Tribunal that the Applicant has a close-knit family in Australia who would each be adversely affected by a decision that he be required to be removed from Australia (and that such removal would likely be permanent). The assessment of that impact is more complicated for the Applicant's daughters (discussed further below).

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

1. The Applicant advanced a case to the effect that he was a long-term resident, who had established his life, home and family in Australia from a young age.[93] The Tribunal was provided an outline of the Applicant's previous employment,[94] and references from two of his former employers.[95] As noted above, the Applicant has extensive family ties to this jurisdiction and limited family ties in NZ. He has the support of the VOC Grace Reformation Community Church in Brisbane.[96]
2. Whilst the majority of the Applicant's adult life in Australia has been marred by the commission of violent crimes and reckless indifference to the risks associated with drink driving, the Minister accepted that this primary consideration weighed in favour of revocation and that the Tribunal should not deduct weight from the Applicant's ties to the Australian community by reason of his offending soon after his return to Australia in June 2004.[97]
3. The Tribunal finds that this primary consideration, including the impact of a decision on the Applicant's immediate family and the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's other ties to Australia, weighs moderately in favour of revocation.

1. The Tribunal is required to consider the best interests of minor children in Australia that are affected by the decision.[98] As there are multiple relevant minor children in this application, the Tribunal is required to give their interests separate consideration to the extent that their interests may differ.[99] Clause 8.4(4) of the Direction outlines the factors that the Tribunal must consider when determining the best interests of a child affected by the decision.
2. The Tribunal has already summarised some of the evidence before it concerning the Applicant's two minor children in the context of the Strength, nature and duration of ties primary consideration.
3. It was accepted by the Minister that the best interests of each relevant minor child weighed in favour of revocation but submitted that the weight to be given to those interests should be 'tempered'.[100]

1. In considering the best interest of Miss GCF, the Tribunal has had regard to:

(a) The nature and duration of the father-daughter relationship, noting that there has been limited meaningful contact between the Applicant and Miss GCF since March 2022 and that the conditions of the Applicant's parole presently prohibit contact or communication until April 2029; > > (b) Miss GCF is 17 years old, and the Applicant is not likely to play a positive parental role until she reaches the age of majority. > > (c) Miss GCF has been physically assaulted by the Applicant and has been present for his family violence in her presence from a very young age. This likely has had a negative impact on her health and development.[101] > > (d) The Applicant's removal is unlikely to effect the ability for them to communicate in the reasonably foreseeable future, however the Tribunal is prepared to accept that Miss GCF would like her father to be allowed to remain in Australia. > > (e) Miss GCF is being cared for by her mother and extended family, including the Applicant's parents and siblings (the child's grandparents, aunt/uncles etc.) after school. > > (f) There are no known direct views of the child, however the Tribunal is prepared to accept the anecdotal evidence before it to the effect that the Applicant's daughters care for their father and want him to remain in Australia.

1. In considering the best interest of Miss ANF, the Tribunal has had regard to:

(a) The nature and duration of the father-daughter relationship, noting that there has been limited meaningful contact between the Applicant and Miss ANF since March 2022 and that the conditions of the Applicant's parole presently prohibit contact or communication until April 2029; > > (b) Miss ANF is 15 years 10 months old, and the Applicant is not likely to play a positive parental role until she reaches the age of majority. > > (c) Miss ANF has been physically assaulted by the Applicant (and her mother was in fact assaulted when she was pregnant with this child), and she has been present for his family violence in her presence from birth. This likely has had a negative impact on her health and development.[102] > > (d) The Applicant's removal is unlikely to effect the ability for them to communicate in the reasonably foreseeable future, however the Tribunal is prepared to accept that Miss ANF would like her father to be allowed to remain in Australia. > > (e) Miss ANF is being cared for by her mother and extended family, including the Applicant's parents and siblings (the child's grandparents, aunt/uncles etc.) after school. > > (f) There are no known direct views of the child, however the Tribunal is prepared to accept the anecdotal evidence before it to the effect that the Applicant's daughters care for their father and want him to remain in Australia.

1. The Applicant has multiple minor nieces/nephews (the children of his siblings), as follows:

(a) The children of his sister, Penina: > > > (i) Miss RF (13); > > > > (ii) Master Romeo L (8); > > > > (iii) Master Ragnar L (6); > > > > (iv) Miss RL (5); and > > > > (v) Master Rio L (2) > > (b) The children of his sister, Faith: > > > (i) Master ZSF (5); and > > > > (ii) Master CJF (3).

2. The Applicant has not met the youngest of these nieces/nephews because of his imprisonment/detention. However, there is nothing to meaningfully distinguish the best interests of each of these children. It was accepted that the relationship was non-parental,[103] and that each child are being cared for by their respective parents. There was no evidence before the Tribunal indicating that any of these children have been the victims of the Applicant's violence in past. The Applicant's sister Faith testified that she had no concerns with approaching QCS for approval as an 'authorised adult' for the purposes of Condition (ii) of the Applicant's parole order (prohibiting him from being in the company of a child under 16 without the presence of an approved adult).

1. Mr Faalelei testified that he has an infant child and is expecting another child in June 2026. The unborn child is not a 'child' for the purposes of the Direction (and the Convention on the Rights of the Child).[104] The infant has not met the Applicant and, like Faith Fetalaiga, Mr Faalelei had no concerns with the Applicant being around his children and was prepared to approach QCS for approval as an 'authorised adult'. The Tribunal finds that the second cousin's best interests are equivalent to those of the Applicant's nieces/nephews (the relationship being non-parental etc).

1. Ms Scanlon testified that she has two children (17 and 9 years of age, respectively) and that they have a close relationship with the Applicant's daughters. She had no concerns with Applicant being around her children and was willing to engage with QCS to obtain approval as an 'authorised adult' if this was required. Ms Scanlon's children are in an equivalent position to Mr Faalelei's son and to the Applicant's nieces/nephews.

1. For the above reasons, the Tribunal finds that revocation would be in the best interests of the Applicant's daughters, nieces/nephews and second cousins. Cumulatively, the best interests of relevant minor children primary consideration weighs moderately in favour of revocation.

1. This primary consideration is a 'kind of deeming provision',[105] which requires the Tribunal to consider the Minister's articulation of community expectations.[106] Clause 8.5(1) of the Direction provides that 'the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia'. The Direction goes on to state that:[107]

[w]here 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 would not allow such a non-citizen to enter or remain in Australia.

2. Clause 8.5(2) then adds to that first 'norm_'_ and indicates that non-revocation may be appropriate in a particular case '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'. It specifies identified kinds of conduct, committed in Australia or elsewhere, as attracting that further expectation,[108] including 'acts of family violence'[109] and 'commission of serious crimes against women, children'.[110]
3. The norms identified in the Direction 'apply regardless of whether the [Applicant] poses a [measurable] risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community'.[111]
4. The Tribunal is also specifically commanded to 'proceed on the basis of the Government's views as articulated' in the Direction, 'without independently assessing the community's expectations in the particular case'.[112]
5. The Tribunal adopts the approach to this primary consideration identified by Justice Horan in RCLN v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 876 at [50]- [59].
6. The Tribunal finds that this primary consideration weighs very heavily against revocation and will weigh this against the other relevant considerations.

1. The Tribunal is required to consider the legal consequences of its decision.[113] That is, the Tribunal must have regard to the statutory framework in which the power to revoke a mandatory cancellation decision exists, including the direct and immediate consequences of an exercise of the power (including any decision under s 105 of the ART Act).
2. There are three major consequences of visa refusal or cancellation under s 501 and related provisions:

(a) a prohibition, within the migration zone, on applying for other types of visas under s 501E of the Migration Act (other than a protection visa or a bridging (removal pending) visa);[114]

(b) refusal/cancellation of other visa applications/visas under s 501F of the Migration Act; and

(c) the possible application of periods of exclusion and special return criteria under s 503 of the Migration Act and SRC 5001 and 5002 in Sch 5 to the Migration Regulations. This includes permanent exclusion where SRC 5001 applies unless the Minister acts personally to grant a permanent visa to the person under s 195A.

1. These adverse consequences can each be avoided by a positive decision to revoke the cancellation decision, and it should not be assumed that Parliament has evinced any preference as to the outcome of the review.[115]
2. When the Applicant's special category visa was cancelled, he became an 'unlawful non-citizen'.[116] That is, a non-citizen in the migration zone that did not hold a visa that is in effect.[117] This status conferred liability to be detained under s 189(1) of the Migration Act and this occurred in April 2025. The Applicant is relevantly required to be detained until he is either removed from Australia under s 198 or he is granted a visa (including having his special category visa restored to him under s 501CA(4)).[118]
3. Sections 198(1) and (2B) of the Migration Act provide for removal either at written request or where there has been a mandatory cancellation and a subsequent decision made not to revoke that cancellation, respectively. The duty to remove an unlawful non-citizen arises irrespective of whether there has been an assessment, according to law, of Australia's non-refoulement obligations in respect of the non-citizen.[119] However, s 198 of the Migration Act does not require or authorise a non-citizen's removal to a country if, during the course of a protection visa application, there has been a protection finding made for the person with respect to that country.[120]
4. The Applicant did not advance any non-refoulement obligation for consideration and none arises on the material before the Tribunal.[121]
5. There is no reason to suppose that any required removal to the NZ would not be practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future.
6. It was accepted by the parties that a likely consequence of a decision to affirm the reviewable decision would be that the Applicant would be excluded from Australia and from the members of his Australian family into the foreseeable future.
7. The Minister submitted that this was an intended consequence of the statutory scheme and that the weight to be given to that adverse prospect was subsumed into the Tribunal's evaluation of the other relevant considerations.[122] The Tribunal disagrees with the Minister's characterisation of the prospect of permanent exclusion. As Chief Justice Allsop remarked in Hands v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) 267 FCR 628,[123] cases under s 501 of the Migration Act have human consequences, which require honest confrontation of what is being done to people. In the Tribunal's humble opinion, the prospect of permanent exclusion of a former long-term resident and consequent separation from their Australian-resident family (especially children) ought to be given some weight against that outcome in the ultimate balancing exercise.
8. The legal and other consequences of the Tribunal's decision weigh in favour of revocation.

1. The Tribunal must consider the extent of any impediments that the Applicant may face if removed from Australia to NZ, in establishing himself, and in maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens in that country), taking into account the Applicant's age and health, whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers, and any social, medical, and/or economic support available to him in NZ.[124]
2. The Applicant is 39 years old and in good health. He has outstanding treatment needs with respect to substance use. However has been abstinent from April 2022.
3. It was accepted that there were not any substantial language or cultural barriers to the Applicant's return to NZ.[125] The Applicant has some work experience in Australia and has acquired several vocational qualifications whilst in prison.[126]
4. NZ has a comprehensive health, education and social security network.[127] Mr Fetalaiga will be able to register and access those services as required. Moreover, on any return to NZ, the Applicant may be subject to supervision by NZ authorities under the Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Act 2015 (NZ) (Returning Offenders Act). This includes the potential for court-imposed drug or alcohol conditions.[128] Community organisations such as the Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Services[129] and Te Pa[130] also provide support to people in the Applicant's position in NZ.
5. It may be accepted that the Applicant would have limited to no social or familial support in NZ. The Tribunal considers that the Applicant will be personally and deeply affected by permanent removal to NZ. This potential emotional and psychological hardship can be withstood, but this potential removal and subsequent adjustment should not be easily dismissed.
6. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant could likely re-establish himself in NZ and maintain basic living standards. Nevertheless, removal is a potentially devastating consequence, including associated negative impacts on his immediate family. This other consideration weighs in favour of revocation.

1. The Winza Tree Lopping business run by the Applicant's siblings and father was a potential business interests which might be affected by the Tribunal's decision. However, it was agreed by the parties that there was insufficient evidence before the Tribunal to establish that this business interests would be materially affected if the Applicant was not allowed to remain in Australia, and that there was no evidence before the Tribunal demonstrating that an adverse decision would 'significantly compromise the delivery of a major project, or the delivery of an important service in Australia'.[131]
2. Accordingly, the Tribunal gives this other consideration neutral weight.

1. The Tribunal is required to bring together the relevant considerations in this matter and consider, as part of a single evaluation, their relative significance in terms of whether the Tribunal is ultimately satisfied that there is 'another reason' why the mandatory cancellation decision should be revoked.[132]
2. Clause 7(2) of the Direction states that the primary consideration in cl 8.1 (protection of the Australian community) is 'generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations', and that, otherwise, the relevant 'primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the [relevant] other considerations.' This guidance is consistent with the principle articulated at cl 5.2(2), that 'the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian government'.
3. The Tribunal considers there to be good reason to depart from the above policy in this case.[133] The Tribunal has found that the Applicant poses an acceptable risk to the community because of the stringent terms of his parole order in Queensland. Further, the above policy guidance does not mean that the other relevant considerations are secondary to the primary considerations, or that the first primary consideration should always be given greater weight.[134]
4. The Applicant's previous conduct was very serious and includes extensive instances of family violence. In the Tribunal's view, the factors which weighed the strongest in the review were Primary Considerations Two (family violence) and Five (community expectations). The Australian Government's concerns about conferring the privilege to remain here on the perpetrators of family violence are squarely enlivened and they assumed particular significance in this matter. These two primary considerations collectively weigh very heavily against revocation and outweighed those factors which are in the Applicant's favour (particularly the strength, nature and duration of his ties primary consideration, the best interests of relevant minor children primary consideration and the relevant other considerations) by a considerable margin.
5. The Tribunal, after considering each of the relevant considerations identified within the Direction, is not satisfied that there is 'another reason' to revoke that cancellation decision. The correct decision is therefore to affirm reviewable decision.

I certify that the preceding 143 (one hundred and forty-three) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of General Member J Papalia

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

• Print (pretty)
• Print (eco-friendly)

• RTF format (38.8 MB)

• Signed PDF/A format

• [LawCite records](/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=[2025] ARTA 2687)
• [NoteUp references](/cgi-bin/sinosrch.cgi?method=boolean&query=2025 ARTA 2687 or ARTA 2025 2687)

• [Tweet this page](https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=%E2Fetalaiga and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Migration) [2025] ARTA 2687 (1 December 2025)%E2%80%9D&url=http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/ARTA/2025/2687.html&via=austlii&hashtags=austlii)
• Follow @AustLII on Twitter

• About
• Copyright & Usage
• Privacy
• Disclaimers
• Help

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/ARTA/2025/2687.html