1. The character test is defined in s 501(6) of the Act. A person will not pass the character test if they have a substantial criminal record. The phrase 'substantial criminal record' is defined in s 501(7) and includes circumstances where a person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.
2. Subsection 501(3A)(a)(i) of the Act provides that the Minister must cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if satisfied that the person does not pass the character test because they have a 'substantial criminal record', and is serving a sentence of imprisonment on a full time basis in a custodial institution for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.
3. Section 501CA of the Act applies where the Minister makes a decision under s 501(3A) to cancel a visa that has been granted to a person. The Minister may revoke the original cancellation decision pursuant to s 501CA(4) of the Act. Section 500(1)(ba) of the Act provides the Tribunal with the power to review decisions of a delegate of the Minister under s 501CA(4) not to revoke a decision to cancel a visa.
4. The Minister has made written directions under s 499 of the Act, which apply to decision-makers in the exercise of power under s 501CA(4). The relevant direction is Direction no. 110 - Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (the Direction or Direction 110).
5. Paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110 provides overarching principles which the Tribunal has considered when reviewing the Applicant's application. It relevantly provides:

(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 non­citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law-abiding, will respect important institutions, such as Australia's law enforcement framework, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.

(2) The safety of the Australian Community is the highest priority of the Australian Government.

(3) Non-citizens who engage or have engaged in criminal or other serious conduct should expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the privilege of staying in, Australia.

(4) The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they engaged in conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, that raises serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.

(5) Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa Applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, or by other non-citizens who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only for a short period of time.

(6) With respect to decisions to refuse, cancel, and revoke cancellation of a visa, Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age.

(7) Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the non­ citizen's conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation.

(8) The inherent nature of certain conduct such as family violence is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation, even if the information available at the time of consideration suggests that the non-citizen does not pose a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.

1. Part 2 of Direction 110 identifies the considerations the Tribunal must take into account where relevant to a decision.[1]
2. In applying the considerations, information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight. The primary consideration of the 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. One or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.
3. The primary considerations in the Direction 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; and

(5) expectations of the Australian community.

1. The other considerations set out in Direction 110 which must be taken into account where relevant 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. It is not in dispute that the Applicant fails the character test as he has a substantial criminal record for the purposes of s 501(6)(a) of the Act. Subsection 501CA(4)(b) of the Act provides that the Tribunal may revoke the original decision if it is satisfied:

(i) that the Applicant passes the character test; or > > (ii) that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked.

2. As the Applicant does not pass the character test, the sole issue for determination is whether the Tribunal can be satisfied that there is another reason why the mandatory cancellation of the visa should be revoked.

Primary Consideration 1: Protection of the Australian Community

1. The Tribunal must have regard to the protection of the Australia community from criminal or other serious conduct. Relevantly, paragraph 8.1.1 of the Direction states:

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.

1. Paragraph 8.1.1 of Direction 110 provides that decision-makers should also give consideration to the 'nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's conduct to date' and paragraph 8.1.2 requires consideration of 'the risk to the Australian community, should the non-citizen commit further offending or engage in other serious conduct.'

Nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct to date

1. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the Applicant and his family consisting of his parents and two younger sisters, arrived in Australia on 25 September 2016, having been issued with Global Special Humanitarian (Subclass 202) visas. These visas are issued to persons outside Australia because they are facing substantial persecution in their home country that constitutes a gross violation of human rights.
2. From 2016 until 2022, the Applicant and his family adapted to life in Australia. The Applicant's mother struggled with mental health and physiological conditions, the Applicant's father largely provided support to his wife, the Applicant's younger sisters attended to their education and the Applicant obtained work at a FedEx warehouse and later as a handyman. The evidence indicates that the Applicant through his employment contributed financially to the family.
3. The evidence indicates that until 14 January 2022, the Applicant had no criminal antecedents in Australia or overseas.
4. As discussed with respect to the agreed facts outlined by Judge Gartelmann in sentencing comments in the District Court dated 9 December 2024, the evidence indicates that the Applicant and the victim met via an online dating application. The Applicant picked the victim up in his car. Over the course of the evening, the Applicant and the victim drove to a number of locations and the Applicant made a number of unwanted advances towards the victim. They purchased some takeaway food and drove to another location and sat in the car and ate. The Applicant continued to make unwanted advances towards the victim. The Applicant asked the victim to give him a head job and she advised him that she did not do this "stuff" on a first date. The Applicant put his hand under the victim's skirt between her upper thighs and she moved his hand away and told the Applicant that she did not want to do this. She further advised the Applicant that she needed to go home as she had to work the next day, and it was getting late. The Applicant tried to touch the victim's genital area under her skirt and once again she said "no" and repeated that she needed to go home. The victim then agreed on the basis that she was scared, and she felt if she did not consent to the Applicant's advances that she would not be able to get home. Once again, the Applicant asked the victim to give him a blow job. Again, the victim stated that she did not want to do it. The Applicant digitally penetrated the victim. Once again, she asked him to stop. Again, she advised that she needed to go home. The Applicant pulled his pants down and the victim saw his penis was erect. He again asked her to give him a "blow job" and again she advised that she would not. The Applicant stated to the victim that if she gave him a "blow job", he would take her home. The victim put her mouth on the Applicant's penis for about two seconds and felt wrong and disgusted so stopped. The Applicant thrust his penis into the victims, vagina for about 2 to 3 minutes. She asked him to stop. The Applicant withdrew for about two seconds. She asked the Applicant not to "come" in her. The Applicant then withdrew and ejaculated into his hand. The victim asked the Applicant to take her home and he did, the Applicant asked the victim if she was okay, and she advised that she was just tired.
5. The victim called a sexual assault Hotline the following morning. The victim was advised to report the offending to the police. The victim attended her local police station on 17 January 2023 to report the matter. Police attended the Applicant's home the following day and he was arrested and charged with the offence.
6. Having regard to the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's criminal offending, crimes of a sexual nature against women are considered to be very serious by the Australian Government and community.
7. Overall, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant's offending must be viewed very seriously.

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

Paragraph 8.1.2 of the Direction provides in part:[2]

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.

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:

1. information and evidence on the risk of the non-citizen re­ offending; and
2. 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).

1. Having regard to the sentencing comments in the District Court on 9 December 2024 Judge Gartelmann noted that:

"the offender is aged 28 years. He has no record of prior convictions. Prior good character warrants leniency. He is from Iraq. His parents are of Assyrian background. His family were poor but pro-social. His early upbringing was stable. Until war broke out in Iraq when he was seven. The family resolved to leave Iraq. They travelled to Syria in 2009 but returned when his grandmother became ill. They resolve to leave again with the rise of ISIS. They migrated to Turkey in 2014. They migrated to Australia in 2018(sic). They have a wide extended family here. The instability in his upbringing compromised his education. It ceased in year eight. He worked as a waiter in Iraq and then in a barbershop in Turkey. He found work here in construction and worked with a freight company. He was most recently employed as a handyman".

2. The judge noted that the Applicant had no history of mental health difficulty and noted that he had been assessed by a psychologist with respect to the court proceedings. The judge found that there was no evidence that the Applicant had a mental health condition that contributed to the offence and reduce his culpability for the offence. The psychologist diagnosed an adjustment disorder with anxiety. The judge noted that the Applicant:

"told the psychologist he was guilty of the offence. He claimed he misinterpreted the victim's conduct at the time. He expressed some recognition of its wrongfulness. He said he would never do it again. He told the psychologist he would apologise to the victim if he could. He gave evidence in these proceedings. He reiterated he would apologise to the victim if he could. He said he understood the victim was hurt because of it. He struggled to articulate this further. He said he could not express it very well. The evidence together establishes he has accepted responsibility for his actions and acknowledged their consequences. It indicates he is remorseful but has limited insight. This indicates rehabilitation prospects albeit qualified. The psychologist thought his prospects favourable. The psychologist noted he said he would participate in sex offenders' treatment if asked. The psychologist considered the risk of re-offence low to medium. He has not offended before or since. His custodial history records no misconduct in custody. He retains the support of his immediate and extended family. His rehabilitation prospects appear reasonably good. The likelihood of reoffending appears relatively low".

3. The Judge discounted the Applicant's sentence by 10% for his guilty plea. The Judge noted that:

"special circumstances justify a lower proportion for the non-parole period. This is the offenders first time in custody. His mental condition has made his experience in prison to date moderately more onerous. And prolonged supervision is required on his release. This would facilitate his participation in offence specific or psychological treatment in the event it does not occur in custody. This would in turn enable his attitude and victim empathy to be addressed".

4. Has noted the Applicant was assessed by a clinical psychologist Mr John Machlin on 18 October 2024 and Mr Machlin produced a report dated 25 October 2024 which is located in the hearing book at pages 303-308.
5. The psychologist noted that the Applicant was able to participate in the assessment, but he presented as being highly anxious because of his circumstances. The psychologist noted that the Applicant showed no sign of cognitive impairment or psychotic disturbance. Despite the Applicant's enduring hardship relating to war and displacement there was no evidence of a post-traumatic stress disorder or another diagnosable reactive condition.
6. The psychologist using the Static-99R risk assessment instrument for sex offenders, which covers 10 static demographic and historical factors assessed the Applicant as being in the low-medium risk category. With respect to Sexual Violence Risk-20 (SVR-20) the majority of the items applicable in that test to identify risk were not applicable to the Applicant. There was no prior history of sexual offending or any other offending. There was no known history of paraphilia, psychopathy, personality disorder, addiction or supervision failures. The psychologist noted that the Applicant did not use a weapon or make threats and that the Applicant had a clean record prior to the incident. He did not display attitudes that support or condone sexual offences but appeared naïve when discussing consent and victim impact.
7. Mr Machlin concluded that:

"giventhe altogether low incidence of known risk factors, and given the consequences and repercussions to date, he is not someone who fits the profile of a high, risk offender".

8. Mr Machlin concluded that the Applicant's prospects of rehabilitation were favourable, that he was not considered to be at high risk on available indicators, that he had accepted responsibility for his offence, he had expressed remorse, and he was agreeable to treatment.
9. Mr Machlin noted that in term of protective factors the Applicant has:

"the benefit of a seemingly protective and harmonious family, he settled into a new life in Australia and sustained satisfactory overall adjustment".

"Mr Awdo's prospects of rehabilitation are favourable. He is not considered to be at high risk of re-offence on available indicators, he accepts responsibility for his offence, he expresses remorse, and he is agreeable to treatment".

11. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant had expressed to Mr Machlin his willingness to engage in treatment and rehabilitation if he is released into the community. The Applicant advised at the hearing that access to a sex offenders' program was not available to him during the course of his imprisonment and claims that the reason for this was that the sentencing judge did not direct that he engage in such a course during his period of confinement.
12. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that between April 2022 and September 2024 the Applicant remained on bail in the community for over two years without reoffending.

Conclusion as to the protection of the Australian community

1. The Applicant's offending is very serious and offending of a similar nature in the future may cause significant physical and psychological harm to the Australian community.
2. The Respondent has contended that the Applicant has exhibited a lack of insight into his offending behaviour and that this factor contributes to risk.
3. The Tribunal notes the findings of Mr Machlin with respect to insight in which he states in his report that the Applicant:

"understands that he committed a serious offence and he accepts responsibility for it. His claim of naïveté, that he did not realise he was committing an offence at the time, illustrates the kind of distorted thinking that can typically fuel sexual misconduct, for example, over interpreting the victim's willingness, discounting signals to the contrary, and minimisation of the impact. While Mr Awdo was clearly intent on seeking sexual gratification, he wanted to believe that the victim was a willing participant and might have convinced himself of it to a significant degree".

4. As has been discussed the District Court recommended that when the Applicant is released into the community, he should be the subject of prolonged supervision to facilitate his participation in offence specific psychological treatment to address his attitude and victim empathy. This theme is picked up and the report of Mr Machlin where he states that:

"addressing distorted thinking patterns and enhancing victim empathy are key goals for sex offender treatment. He is recommended to participate in the suite of services within the corrective system, whether in custody or the community, and subject to screening by program facilitators as to his suitability for individual or group options".

5. The Applicant has given evidence to the Tribunal of his willingness to participate in any courses or rehabilitation that he is directed to engage in if he is released back into the community. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant's evidence with respect to this. The Applicant stated that a full-time custodial sentence has had a profound impact on him, given him an opportunity to reflect on his offending behaviour and to resolve never to commit offences again and to never return to jail. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant will engage in any suggested rehabilitation programs if released into the community and the Tribunal is fortified by the findings of Mr Machlin that the Applicant's prospects of rehabilitation are favourable.
6. Another strong incentive for the Applicant not to engage in future offending is the fact that his family have expended considerable resources on supporting him through the criminal justice system and with respect to the cancellation of his visa. The Applicant gave evidence that upon release into the community that he will return to work and take proactive steps in repaying his family for the substantial financial support that they have given him through this process. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant, prior to his offending and subsequent incarceration, had a solid work history in Australia and as noted by Mr Machlin, the Applicant settled well into his new life in Australia and "sustained satisfactory overall adjustment".
7. The Tribunal further finds that there is another factor that will act as a strong risk mitigation factor and that is that the Applicant and his family sought, and were granted, Global Special Humanitarian visas. As submitted, these visas are issued on the basis that a person or their family face substantial discrimination or human rights abuses in their home country.
8. The evidence indicates that the Applicant is Assyrian Christian and hence part of an ethnic and religious minority in Iraq that have been subject to persecution. The Tribunal finds that the circumstances that the Applicant confronted in 2024 as a result of his offending and the subsequent cancellation of his visa are factors that will act as a very strong incentive to ensure that he does not engage in future offending.
9. The Applicant has experienced incarceration and is aware that the Australian Government and the Australian community have zero tolerance for sexual crimes against women and that it is viewed so seriously that it can lead to a term of imprisonment. The Applicant has as a consequence of his experience in the criminal justice system, learnt that sexual activity between adults must be based on consent between the participating parties and extends to all stages of physical and sexual engagement. As discussed, the Applicant is willing to attend any community-based sex offender's programs as they were not made available to him in gaol. His participation in such programs has been envisaged by Judge Gartelmann with respect to the need for offence specific psychological treatment whilst being supervised on parole.
10. The Applicant has also faced the very real prospect of being removed from Australia and has expressed his concerns about facing persecution if he was returned to Iraq because of his Assyrian Christian identity and due to the fact that his father worked in a church, which made the family a target for insurgent groups such as Daesh.
11. The Tribunal also finds that the Applicant faces the prospect of being permanently removed from his parents and two younger sisters and the evidence is that his family, given their close shared experiences. The Tribunal finds that his close relationship with them will act as a strong risk mitigation factor going forward. Given the Applicant would be potentially removed to Iraq, the prospect of his parents or sisters ever physically interacting with him is significantly low given the ongoing volatile conditions that prevail in Iraq. The Tribunal finds that these elements should collectively act as significant risk mitigation factors going forward.
12. The Tribunal considers that this primary consideration weighs strongly against revoking the cancellation of the Applicant's visa on account of his offending, however the weight apportioned to this consideration is tempered by the significant risk mitigation factors which have been discussed above.

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

1. This consideration is not relevant in this review as the Applicant has not committed family violence a fact that is conceded by the Respondent.

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

1. The Tribunal is required to consider the impact of the decision on the Applicant'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. The Tribunal is also required to consider the strength, nature and duration of any other ties that the Applicant has to the Australian community having 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.

1. The Applicant's parents and two sisters are in Australia, and they all hold Australian citizenship.
2. The Applicants father has given evidence to the Tribunal in two statements that have been duly considered. In his most recent dated 10 September 2025 the Applicant states that the implications of the cancellation decision is "both grave and far-reaching, not only for my son but for our entire family, who have worked tirelessly to rebuild our lives in Australia after fleeing the horrors of Iraq". The Applicant notes that his wife has struggled with severe mental health issues relating to past trauma and relating to the Applicant's imprisonment, visa cancellation and prospective removal from the country. With respect to this, the Applicant states that "my wife's mental health is fragile, and the emotional toll of losing [the Applicant] would irreparably harm her and diminish our family's ability to cope with life's challenges. The thought of my son being sent to such a dangerous and unstable environment is a constant source of fear and anguish".
3. The Applicant's mother provided two statements both have been considered by the Tribunal. The most recent statement is dated 10 September 2025. Mrs Al-Brikha states that she and her family fled Iraq due to severe safety concerns arriving in Australia to build a better future. She expresses the distress that the potential deportation of the Applicant to Iraq has caused her family given the volatile conditions that exist in that country. She submits that sending her son back to Iraq would place his life at risk.
4. Mrs Al-Brikha states that:

"I have been struggling with depression and anxiety ever since we were forced to witness the horrors of war in our home country. The grief of losing my mother in 2022 compounded these struggles. Recently, my mental health has deteriorated even further due to the stress of the uncertainty surrounding Steven's situation, particularly after his recent conviction and time in jail. Most nights, I am deeply anguished at the thought of my son being sent back to the very dangers we fled from. The mere possibility is overwhelming, and the pain of knowing there is little I can do to protect him is unbearable. I implore you, with the utmost sincerity, to reconsider any decision that would result in his deportation. > > I want to stress that Steven fully acknowledges his past mistakes and is genuinely remorseful for his actions. He has shown a sincere commitment to changing and has taken full responsibility for his behaviour. I have seen first-hand his determination to turn his life around, and I believe he is on a positive path. > > Our family has deeply integrated into Australian society, and my son has started building a life here, away from the turmoil and dangers of our homeland. His siblings, too, are thriving and benefiting from the safety and opportunities provided by this country. The emotional, psychological, and physical told that this situation is taking on us is immense, and I ask for your understanding and compassion in considering the far-reaching consequences of this decision. > > I kindly request your support in allowing my son to remain in Australia, where he can continue to grow, contribute, and build a future free from the fears of the past. We are grateful for the opportunity to make a new life here, and I sincerely hope that you will take our unique and vulnerable situation into account when making your decision".

5. The Tribunal was provided with a report addressing Mrs Al-Brikha's mental health which is dated 4 March 2025 and is located at pages 92-93 of the hearing book. The report is prepared by Dr Mahmoud Abu-Arab a Clinical Psychologist and is dated 4 March 2025. The report notes that Mrs Al-Brikha had been assessed by Dr Abu-Arab for the first time on 19 February 2024 under a mental health care plan (referred by her GP) for treatment of her trauma and depression. The report notes that Mrs Al-Brikha was subject to numerous traumatic events in Iraq and witnessed the killing of many innocents. Mrs Al-Brikha and her family were subject to discrimination due to their ethnic background and religious beliefs. The report notes that as a consequence of her experiences in Iraq, Mrs Al-Brikha started experiencing post-traumatic symptoms that included bad dreams, preoccupation with thoughts of earlier traumas, being easily startled, worsening memory and concentration, low frustration tolerance and feelings of hopelessness. The report notes that Mrs Al-Brikha was suffering with chronic post-traumatic stress disorder along with a major depressive disorder, diagnoses that had been made as a result of diagnostic testing. The report notes that the Mrs Al-Brikha's son had been convicted of a sexual assault and was serving a term of imprisonment and facing the possible cancellation of his visa and noted the substantial impact that this had upon Mrs Al-Brikha.
6. The Tribunal is required under Direction 110 at 8.3(1) to consider the impact of any decision on the non-citizen's family members who have the right to reside permanently in Australia. The evidence with respect to the impact of the decision to cancel the Applicant's visa and his removal from Australia has in the view of the Tribunal a profound impact on his mother due to a number of factors. She is a person who has fled a war-ravaged country and has witnessed atrocities firsthand. She had to flee her country with her young family to Turkey and in due course was granted a Global Special Humanitarian visa to Australia. She has struggled with the impact of her past and this is reflected in the evidence from Dr Abu-Arab. The Tribunal finds that the cancellation of the Applicant's visa and the removal of her son will lead to a profound and adverse impact upon her already very fragile mental health.
7. The Applicant's younger sister provided two statements to the Tribunal which have been duly considered. The most recent statement is dated 7 September 2025. The Applicant's sister talks about the very strong bond that she has with her only brother andthat her brother's removal from her life since his imprisonment had a profound impact upon her. She expressed that she was fully aware of her brothers criminal offending and believes that her brother will work tirelessly to make amends, and to move on from his criminal conviction.
8. The Applicant's younger sister states that:

"the thought of Steven being removed from Australia breaks my heart. Not only would it devastate him, but it would tear at the very fabric of our family and community. Steven is the heart of so many lives, providing love, stability, and support to those who need it most. His absence would leave a hole that no one could fill. He is not just a brother, a son, or a friend, he is a pillar of strength, a source of light, and a vital part of the community. > > Our parents came to this country seeking safety and a better life for their children, escaping the horrors of war and danger. To now face the possibility of losing one of us, feels like an unbearable blow. He is a cornerstone of our family, and the emotional impact of his permanent absence would be immeasurable. > > Please consider the heartache that his removal would bring to our family and community he has become an essential part of. Every person deserves a chance to rebuild their life, to grow, and to create a future filled with hope. I truly believe that Steven has earned that chance here in Australia, where he has found a sense of belonging and purpose".

9. The Applicant's older sister also provided two statements to the Tribunal, with the most recent dated 8 September 2025. The Applicant's sister notes that she is fully aware of her brother's conviction and the gravity of the situation. She advised that she was incredibly proud that her brother took full responsibility for his actions and pled guilty to his offending. She advised that she had observed how deeply her brother was impacted by the weight of his mistake. She believed that her brother had learned from the experience and his time in prison. She believed that her brother was committed to becoming a better person. With respect to the impact of her brother's removal from Australia she stated that:

"the separation from my brother, especially from me, my younger sister, and our parents, would cause immense distress. The thought of my brother being sent back to a war-torn country is deeply painful, as we have already endured the hardships of living in such a situation. This is precisely why we fled Iraq, seeking a safer and more secure life here in Australia. My plea is simple, please do not take Steven away from us. He is an integral part of our family, and I cannot imagine important life moments, such as my engagement, marriage, or the day I hope to have children, without him by my side. It would break my heart for my future children to grow up without the opportunity to have their uncle in their lives".

10. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the Applicant after arriving in Australia was able to find work initially in a FedEx warehouse and prior to his imprisonment, in the construction industry as a handyman/labourer. The evidence indicates that the Applicant maintained regular employment in the community prior to his imprisonment. Indeed, Mr Machlin, in his report, notes that the Applicant "has overcome hardship under circumstances of war and recurrent displacement. With the benefit of a seemingly protective and harmonious family, he settled into a new life in Australia and sustained satisfactory overall adjustment".
11. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant made a contribution to Australia through his employment and the evidence suggests that he will be able to continue to make a contribution to Australia going forward.
12. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the Applicant has a number of first cousins in Australia with whom he is close. Those first cousins have a number of minor children that are under their care and control of their parents. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the Applicant is particularly close to his minor cousins. The evidence indicates that he would visit them on a regular basis, and they would visit his family. The evidence indicates that he would play soccer with them, take them swimming, and would take care of them if required. The evidence indicates that the Applicant was implicitly trusted by the parents of his minor cousins that gave evidence to the Tribunal. Evidence has been adduced at the review Hearing that indicates that a number of the Applicant's minor cousins would be impacted by his permanent removal from the country. Since his imprisonment they have been enquiring about his whereabouts and have been told that he is currently living interstate. The witnesses that gave evidence at the hearing advised that their children would be impacted by the permanent removal of the Applicant from their lives.
13. The evidence clearly indicates that the Applicant's strongest ties to the Australian community are his parents and his two sisters.
14. The strength, nature and duration of ties to the Australian community are given very heavy weight in favour of revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant's visa.

Primary Consideration 4: Best interests of minor children affected by the decision

1. Paragraph 8.4 of the Direction requires decision-makers to decide whether the cancellation is, or is not, in the best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision.[3] This consideration applies only if the child is under 18 years old at the time of the decision. In considering the best interests of each child, the factors that must be considered where relevant include:[4]

(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.

1. The Applicant has no minor children of his own.
2. The Tribunal notes that Direction 110 at 8.4(1) specifically states that "decision-makers must make a determination about whether cancellation or refusal under section 501, or non-revocation under section 501CA is, or is not, in the best interests of the child affected by the decision". The Direction does not specify that these minor children must be the biological children of non-citizen. It further specifies that if there are two or more relevant children, that the best interests of each child should be given individual consideration to the extent that their interests may differ.
3. The Direction also specifies that in considering the best interests of the child that decision-makers need to consider the following factors which include the nature and duration of the relationship between the child and the non-citizen, the extent to which the non-citizen is likely to play a positive parental role in the future, the impact of the non-citizens prior conduct, and any likely future conduct and whether that conduct has, or will have a negative impact on the child. The Direction also specifies that decision-makers are also required to consider any known views of the child. The Direction also states that less weight should generally be given where the relationship is non-parental, and consideration needs to be given to whether there are other persons who already fulfil the parental role in relation to the child.
4. The Applicant has provided evidence to the Tribunal of the review that over the years that he has been residing in Australia since 2016 that he has forged what he describes as meaningful relationships with a number of his cousins children. The Applicant describes having an integral part in their lives, providing guidance, comfort and love to them.
5. The Applicant concedes that his role is more like an uncle to these children are not that of the parent.
6. Two of the mothers of these children gave evidence to the Tribunal at hearing confirming the closeness of the relationship between the Applicant and their children. Both witnesses noted that the children were aware of the Applicant's absence from their lives currently and had been asking about his whereabouts. They had been told that their uncle was residing interstate. Both witnesses gave evidence that they believe their children would be adversely impacted by the Applicant's removal from Australia due to the nature of the relationships that he has to each of them.
7. The Applicant's representative in submissions to the Tribunal at review noted that the Department gave moderate weight to this consideration having regard to the impact on minor children of the ongoing cancellation of the Applicant's visa.
8. The evidence indicates that the minor children who are second cousins of the Applicant would be impacted by his removal from Australia. The Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs moderately in favour of revoking the cancellation of the visa.

Primary Consideration 5: Expectations of the Australian community

1. Paragraph 8.5 of the Direction relevantly provides:[5]

(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. Paragraph 8.5(3) of Direction 110 states that these expectations apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
3. It is not for the Tribunal to determine for itself the expectations of the Australian community by reference to an Applicant's circumstances or evidence about those expectations. Rather the Tribunal must give effect to the 'norm' stipulated in the Direction.
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 in the Direction, without independently assessing the community's expectations in the particular case.
5. The Applicant has failed to meet the Australian community's expectation that visa holders obey its laws.
6. Having regard to the Direction and the Applicant's offending, this consideration weighs heavily against revocation.

Legal consequences of decision under section 501 or 501CA

1. Paragraph 9.1 of Direction 110 states that decision-makers should be mindful that unlawful non-citizens are, in accordance with section 198 of the Act, liable to be removed from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable, and in the meantime, detention under section 189, noting also that section 197C(1) of the Act provides that for the purposes of section 198, it is irrelevant whether Australia has non-refoulement obligations in respect of an unlawful non-citizen.
2. The Applicant has stated in relation to his removal that if he was returned to Iraq, he would face persecution in that country. The Applicant has articulated that the reason for this belief is that he is Assyrian, he is Christian, and that his father had an adverse profile in Iraq because he worked in a church.
3. As discussed at hearing there is nothing to preclude the Applicant from lodging a protection visa application in Australia and having his claims for protection properly tested. As the holder of a Global Special Humanitarian visa, which as discussed are issued to people who face substantial discrimination or human rights abuses in their home country the Applicant's claims for protection have not yet been tested. If the Applicant pursues this pathway, he can make an application for a Bridging R visa with respect to consideration being had to him residing in the community during the processing of his protection visa application.
4. The Tribunal notes again that the Applicant was issued with a Global Special Humanitarian visa which is judiciously issued by the Australian Government to people who face substantial discrimination or human rights abuses in their home country, in this case in Iraq.
5. If the Applicant's visa remained cancelled, and he lodged a protection visa application, the process of primary determination, merits review, potential judicial review and then potential Ministerial Intervention has the potential to drag out for an extended period.
6. The Tribunal has had regard to the Respondents submission at hearing that the length of this process is merely speculative. The Tribunal finds however that the Applicant's status in Australia during this period will be tenuous and indeed impactful (irrespective of the length of time involved) until an ultimate determination is made on a protection visa application, if the Applicant decides to lodge one. As discussed at Hearing, if the Applicant is not issued with a Bridging R visa, he could be held in immigration detention for what may be an extended period.
7. The Tribunal has had regard to the Respondent's submission that the Applicant would not be removed to Iraq if he was found to be owed protection obligations. This does not discount the fact that under current law the Applicant could be placed on a removal pathway by the Government at any time and removed to a safe third country. As the Applicant's representative submitted this could be a country such as Nauru. The Tribunal finds that the uncertainty around prospective removal to a third country (even though it is merely speculative at this stage) would no doubt be impactful upon the Applicant and is no warrants consideration as a legal consequence of the decision to cancel the Applicant's visa.
8. The Tribunal finds that the legal consequences of the decision for the Applicant are highly impactful.
9. For these reasons the Tribunal finds that this consideration should weigh heavily in favour of revocation.

(1) 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), taking 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.

1. The Applicant is young and well with no physiological health conditions and no mental health conditions other than the identification of anxiety by Mr Machlin in his assessment of the Applicant.
2. The Applicant has submitted that if he returned to Iraq that the quality of health care and access to government support is inferior to that available in Australia. However, he did concede that as an Iraqi citizen he would be able to avail himself of the services and health care that existed.
3. Overall, the Tribunal finds that this consideration should be given some weight in favour of revocation.

1. The primary consideration of the protection of the Australian community weighs strongly in favour of the cancellation decision.
2. However, as discussed, the Tribunal finds there are a number of risk mitigation and protective factors in play that should act as a strong incentive for the Applicant not to engage in any future criminal conduct. These factors have been extensively discussed in this decision. The Applicant has experienced a loss of liberty through his imprisonment during which time he has had an opportunity to reflect on his offending and its consequences. The Applicant has faced the prospect of his permanent removal from Australia to Iraq, a country in which he holds a fear of persecution (the Applicant has not to date had any claims for protection assessed by the Department). The Applicant has also faced the prospect of permanent removal from his parents and two sisters to whom he is very close. The overwhelming evidence before the Tribunal is that these factors will have a profound impact on the Applicant and indeed an adverse impact upon his immediate family, particularly his mother because of her mental health conditions. The Applicant since arriving in 2016 has managed to successfully integrate and contribute to the Australian community though his ongoing employment.
3. The Applicant has had a forced opportunity through imprisonment to reflect on his offending and to reflect upon and consider the concept of consent. The Applicant is committed to engaging in any self-help or rehabilitation courses upon release into the community such as a sex offenders' course. Indeed, this has been mandated by Judge Gartelmann who stated that upon release the Applicant should be subject to "prolonged supervision" which would facilitate his participation in specific psychological treatment and address his attitude and victim empathy.
4. The Applicant has a number of protective factors in place by having a loving and supportive family. The Tribunal finds that they have been traumatised by the Applicant's offending behaviour and will collectively act to support his transition back into the community. The Applicant is acutely aware of his mother's very fragile mental health and the trauma that his offending and imprisonment have had upon her. The Applicant was described by Mr Machlin as being pro-social and as someone who has adjusted to life in Australia since arriving in 2016. He has been able to maintain consistent employment and these pro-social factors, in the view of the Tribunal along with other factors addressed, collectively serve to mitigate the weight afforded to primary consideration 1.
5. The Tribunal finds that primary consideration 5, the expectations of the Australian community weighs heavily against revocation.
6. The Tribunal finds that primary consideration 3 the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's ties to the Australian community thought his immediate and extended family weigh strongly in favour of revocation. These factors are afforded considerable weight. The evidence indicates that the Applicant's removal from Australia, would be highly impactful upon his parents and two sisters and his first, second and minor cousins with whom he is close and who all have the right to permanently reside in Australia.
7. Primary consideration 4 the best interests of the Applicant's minor cousins with whom he has maintained a close relationship is given moderate weight in favour of the revocation of the cancellation of his visa.
8. The legal consequences of the decision for the reasons articulated weigh heavily in favour of revocation.
9. The extent of impediments the Applicant would be expected to face if removed weigh in favour of revoking the cancellation of his visa and they are afforded moderate weight.
10. In conclusion, the Tribunal considers that that Primary consideration 3 the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia weigh very heavily in favour of revoking the cancellation of the Applicant's visa. To a lesser extent, the best interests of minor children, the Applicant's minor cousins is given moderate weight in support of revoking the visa cancellation. Having regard to the legal consequences of the decision, for the reasons stated, heavy weight is given to this consideration in favour of revoking the cancellation of the Applicant's visa. Having regard to the extent of impediments if removed, this consideration is given moderate weight in favour of revoking the cancellation of the Applicant's visa.
11. Against these matters, the Tribunal has reflected on the strong countervailing considerations, in particular, the seriousness of the Applicant's offending and the expectations of the Australian community, namely primary considerations 1 and 5. However, the Tribunal has concluded on the evidence before it that there is a low likelihood of the Applicant reoffending and there are a number of risk mitigation factors and prosocial factors in place to support this finding, which mean that the primary consideration of protecting the Australian community does not, in the matter before the Tribunal outweigh the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's ties to the Australian community, the best interests of minor children, the legal consequences of the decision and the extent of impediments if removed.
12. The Tribunal on balance finds that the correct and preferable decision is to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant's visa.

1. The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution decides that the cancellation of the Applicant's visa should be revoked.

[1] Direction no. 110 - Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA.