(a) The applicant is a 34-year-old (DOB 15 November 1990) citizen of India who first arrived in Australia on 2 October 2018 at 27 years of age as the holder of the visa (G19). > > (b) On 5 May 2025, the applicant was convicted in the Melbourne County Court on 17 charges of sexual assault and one charge of attempted sexual assault. The applicant was sentenced to a Community Corrections Order for two years and ordered to perform 180 hours of community work (G4). > > (c) On 23 May 2025, the Department sent the applicant a Notice of Intention to consider cancellation under s 501(2) of the Act (NOICC) on the basis that he did not pass the character test under s 501(6)(d)(ii) due to his convictions for sexual offending. That is, if he were to remain in Australia, there was a risk that he would harass, molest, intimidate or stalk another person in Australia (G18). > > (d) On 18 June 2025, the applicant made representations in response to the NOICC (G10; G11). > > (e) On 26 August 2025, a delegate of the Minister decided, under s 501(2) of the Act, to cancel the applicant's visa. The applicant was notified of the decision by email on 10 September 2025 (G3). The same day, the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate's decision.

1. The Tribunal is to determine whether the Visa Applicant passes the character test pursuant to s 501(1) of the Act (as per s501(6)(d)(i)) and, if not, whether the discretion in s501(1) of the Act should be exercised to refuse to grant the Visa Applicant the Visa, applying the principles and considerations set out in Direction No. 110 - Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (Direction 110).

1. A person will not pass the character test if, in the event the person were allowed to enter or to remain in Australia, there is a risk that the person would engage in criminal conduct in Australia s 501(6)(d)(i). Hence, is the Applicant such a person?
2. Direction 110, Annexure A clause 6(2) states that if there is more than a minimal or remote chance that the Applicant would engage in criminal conduct in Australia then he is not of good character. The Tribunal notes that the threshold was lowered from "a significant" to "a" risk by the Migration Amendment (Character and General Visa Cancellation) Act 2014 (Cth). The Explanatory Memorandum to the Migration Amendment (Character and General Visa Cancellation) Act 2014 at [46] states the "intention is that the level of risk required is more than a minimal or trivial likelihood of risk requiring the decision-maker to prove that it amounts to a significant risk".
3. The Applicant was self-represented and did not formally concede that he did not pass the character test. By reason of the matters set out and findings made below the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant is of very low risk of reoffending. However, such a finding does not amount to no risk of reoffending. On the evidence before the Tribunal, it is not satisfied such very low risk equates to 'a' risk that is merely trivial or de minimis. As a consequence, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant does not pass the character test.

1. The approach to Direction 110 is fairly summarised by the Respondent as follows:[2]
2. Paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110 sets out that the Principles stated in the Direction provide the framework within which decision-makers should approach the task of deciding whether to cancel a non-citizen's visa under s 501 of the Act. A key part of those Principles is that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government (paragraph 5.2(2) of Direction 110).
3. Informed by the Principles, the decision-maker must take into account the primary considerations in Part 2 of Direction 110 in deciding whether to cancel a visa under s 501 of the Act. The primary considerations are:

(a) protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct of non-citizens; > > (b) family violence; > > (c) the strength, nature and duration of the non-citizen's ties to Australia; > > (d) the best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision; and the expectations of the Australian community.

4. The decision-maker must also take into account other considerations insofar as they are relevant pursuant to paragraph 9 of Direction 110. These include but are not limited to:

(a) the legal consequences of decision under s 501 or s 501CA; > > (b) the extent of impediments if removed; and > > (c) impact on Australian business interests

1. Paragraph 8.1(2) of the Direction requires Decision-makers to give consideration to:

a) the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's conduct to date; and > > b) the risk to the Australian community, should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.

Nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's conduct to date

1. On 7 April 2025 the Applicant pleaded guilty to 17 sexual assault and 1 attempted assault charges, against individual victims, on 3 Saturday nights during the discrete period of 23 September 2023 to 21 October 2023 (the 2023 Offending). Otherwise, the Applicant has not committed any offences in Australia since arriving here in October 2018 with his now ex-wife, having married her in India in July 2018.

1. The 2023 Offending is viewed very seriously by the Australian community pursuant to Direction 110, para 8.1.1(1)(a). Further, at sentencing on 5 May 2025 His Honour Judge Rozen in the County Court (SJ) noted significant impact upon the individual victims of the 2023 Offending, hence Direction 110 para 8.1.1(1)(d) is engaged. To some extent, because of the high number of victims involved from the 3 nights of offending, Direction 110 paragraphs 8.1.1(1)(e) and (f) are engaged in a limited way.

1. The SJ summarised the 2023 Offending as follows:[3]

(a) In total, you assaulted seventeen women and attempted to assault an eighteenth. The women's ages ranged from 18 to 48. Each of these instances of offending was captured on CCTV. Excerpts of this footage were played in court at the hearing of your plea.

(b) You attended the nightclub on 23 September 2023 at approximately 1:00am. Victim 1 was dancing in the back room. She turned away from you when you tried to engage with her, which is when you touched her buttocks. This offending is the subject of Charge 1 - sexual assault.

(c) 7 Approximately an hour later, you walked behind Victim 2 who was in the back room with her boyfriend. You walked behind her and touched her buttocks.

(d) You then walked up to the bar and positioned yourself behind Victim 3, who was speaking to her husband and touched her buttocks.

(e) You continued to touch both Victim 1 and 2. At one stage, you attempted to pull Victim 2 towards you by grabbing her arm. She ignored you.

(f) You moved onto Victim 3, putting your arms around her. She pushed you away and hugged her husband. You moved behind her and reached to rub the front of her waist.

(g) You returned again to Victim 2, as she walked away with her boyfriend, youtouched her buttocks. You then put your hand under her top from behind and touched her waist.

(h) You continued to touch both women from behind for two minutes. The conduct you engaged in concerning Victim 2 that I have just described forms part of Charge 2 ** - sexual assault (rolled-up)**. The offending against Victim 3 forms part of Charge 3 - sexual assault (rolled-up).

(i) Approximately an hour later, at 4:15am, you saw Victim 4 standing together with her partner. You briefly touched Victim 4 buttocks three times. This offending is the subject of Charge 4 - sexual assault (rolled-up).

1. October 2023

(j) You entered the Revolver nightclub at 2:16am on 14 October 2023. Victim 5 was walking past a set of couches. You walked up behind her and touched her back and buttocks. This forms Charge 5 - sexual assault.

(k) At 2:47am, Victim 6 was standing at the bar with her sister. You approached her and she turned away from you. When her back was turned, you kissed her bare shoulder several times. This forms Charge 6 - sexual assault.

(l) At 5:08am, Victim 7 was on the dance floor. You approached her several times but were rebuffed. You then began touching her from behind. CCTV captured four instances of you touching her buttocks and one of you touching her waist. Sometime later, you again approached her and put your arm around her waist. This conduct makes up Charge 7 - sexual assault (rolled-up).

(m) At approximately 5:16am, you were walking behind Victim 8. You reached out and touched her buttocks. This forms the basis of Charge 8 - sexual assault.

(n) At 7:17am, you were climbing the stairs and saw Victim 9 approaching from below. You paused, waited for her to pass you and positioned yourself behind her with your face beneath her buttocks. You did not make contact. This forms the basis of Charge 9 - attempted sexual assault.

(o) At 10.00am, Victim 10 was entering the upstairs area of the nightclub. You were standing at the door. As she passed you, you touched her buttocks. This forms Charge 10 - sexual assault.

(p) You entered Revolver on 21 October 2023 at 11:53pm. At 2:06am, you moved into close proximity to Victim 11. You positioned yourself behind her and touched her buttocks. This forms the basis of Charge 11 - sexual assault.

(q) At 2:41am, you walked behind Victim 12 and tapped her on the buttocks. This forms Charge 12 - sexual assault.

(r) At 2:43am, you approached Victim 13. She began to feel uncomfortable and requested another nearby man pretend to be her boyfriend. As she was speaking him, you reached out and touched her buttocks from behind. This forms Charge 13 - sexual assault.

(s) At 3:00am, Victim 14 was dancing with her husband. You stood close by watching them. You reached out and touched her buttocks twice. Later, the couple walked to the bar. You followed them and again, reached out to touch her buttocks.

(t) At 3:55am, Victim 14 and her husband were on a sofa. You sat down next to them and reached over to stroke Victim 14 back. The total conduct I have just described relating to Victim 14 forms the basis of Charge 14 - sexual assault (rolled-up).

(u) At 3:23am, you stood behind Victim 15 on the dancefloor. You rubbed her buttocks and moved your hand up her leg. She immediately left the dance floor and complained to her sister of the sexual assault**. Charge 15 - sexual assault (rolled up).**

(v) At 3:25am, you were walking past Victim 16. As you passed her, you stood aside and held out your left hand, brushing it across her waist and buttocks This forms Charge 16 - sexual assault.

(w) At 4:32am, you walked past Victim 17 and touched her buttocks from behind. She immediately turned and pushed you away. You began to walk away but she followed, grabbing your shirt. You ran away from her. This forms Charge 17 - sexual assault.

(x) At 4:39am, Victim 18 was in the front room. You positioned yourself close by. You moved behind Victim 18 and rubbed her bare waist with your hand from behind. You positioned yourself near her and continued to reach out to touch her waist and kissed her arm twice. This conduct was observed by venue manager Ms Cayla White who had been monitoring your movements through CCTV. She sent security to eject you from the venue.

1. The Tribunal notes the significant impact on the many victims of the 2023 Offending as highlighted by the SJ.[4] This underscores the very serious nature of the 2023 Offending. However, this must be balanced against the fact that such offending, although on multiple victims, is very much at the lower end of offending of this kind as discussed by the SJ, as follows:[5]

(a) At the less serious end of the spectrum are cases where both the offender and the victim are adults, and the assault involves sexual touching outside of the clothing for a brief period of time. Such cases are often heard in the Magistrates' Court. The maximum penalty that may be imposed by that Court is 2 years' imprisonment. In such cases, it is common for non-custodial sentences to be imposed of which the most common is a Community Correction Order. > > (b) All of the charges presently before the court fall into the less serious category. This is because all of the touching was momentary and on the outside of the clothing. The victims were adults and were not known to the offender. As the prosecution concedes, such cases are generally prosecuted in the Magistrates Court. > > (c) I have inferred that the reason this case was prosecuted in this court rather than the Magistrates' Court is because of the sheer number of victims and the three separate occasions on which the offending occurred. The brazen nature of the offending - which in some cases occurred in front of the men that the victims were dancing with and even kissing - is also relevant to the court's assessment of the seriousness of its offending. > > (d) Ultimately, I have concluded that each of the offences is at the lower end of the spectrum of seriousness of sexual assaults. This assessment is not intended to downplay the impact of the offending on the victims, particularly the three who have completed victim impact statements.

2. Nonetheless, consistent with the observations in paragraph 3 above, the SJ, having had the benefit of viewing excerpts from the CCTV footage had "some reservations about how affected by alcohol" the Applicant was at the time of the 2023 Offending. The SJ noted the description in the MHARS report of his account of alcohol consumption on the nights in question as appearing "illogical and unlikely".[6] Following the Applicant's testimony during this hearing, the Tribunal shares such reservations and agrees with the SJ where he ultimately "concluded that [the Applicant's] moral culpability for this offending is considerable. I consider that although [the Applicant] was affected by alcohol, [his] actions were deliberate and [he was doing]. This conclusion is based, in part, upon a review of the CCTV material as summarised in the Prosecution Submissions on Sentence dated 3 April 2025,[7] which was considered by the SJ. That summary states:

Review of the exhibits and records from Revolver reflect that:

(a) On 23 September he entered at 1:04am and purchased one drink, a pot of Melbourne Bitter at 4:49am. He was in the venue for over four and a half hours.

(b) On 14 October he entered at 2:18am. He purchased a Bacardi & mixer at 4:13am and three Long Islands at 7:59am. He provided two of the Long Island drinks to women. He was in the venue for over five hours.

(c) On 20-21 October he entered at 11:54pm. He purchased a pot of Melbourne Brr at 2:11am. He was in the venue for over four and a half hours. This is consistent with what he told police, that he consumed a single small beer on this occasion,11 and a review of the CCTV.

1. As to context, in May 2022 the Applicant separated from his wife, just four months before she gave birth to their first child, a daughter. The Applicant was deeply affected by this separation and made some considerable attempts to reconcile with his then wife, but to no avail, they being divorced in May 2024. Following the daughter's birth, the Applicant has only 3 supervised visits with his daughter, an untested AVO being in place until 2026, in the period leading up to the 2023 Offending. Added to the stressors on the Applicant in 2023 was his dealings with his wife's lawyers regarding a property agreement, he again having no legal representation, and having to sell their matrimonial home in Officer in October 2023, proximate to the time of the 2023 Offending. The Applicant dealt with all of this with an increasing use of alcohol from mid-2022.
2. From mid-2022 the Applicant experienced immense loneliness and social isolation, and self-medicated with alcohol use, and then most likely alcohol abuse. The Applicant was not in a good space, psychologically from mid-2022 up until the 2023 Offending. It may be that his later diagnosed Adjustment Disorder with Depression and Anxiety combined with alcohol abuse is also a cause of his lack of recollection of most of the detail of his time and offending on the 3 relevant nights. Substantial evidence before the Tribunal supports this conclusion and the Tribunal so finds. That is relevant to the difficulties the Applicant had in responding to questions about details of the 3 nights in question.
3. In an underwhelming way, the Applicant testified that, a reason for his lack of recollection was his alcohol consumption in the hours preceding each night of offending. He had been drinking from early evening, at least, on those 3 days and hence had arrived intoxicated at Revolver on each of the 3 nights. Also, as is clear from both from his testimony and documentary evidence before the Tribunal that the Applicant was going through a very difficult time from mid-2022 through to the time of the 2023 Offending. Further, he had turned to alcohol (essentially for the first time) during that period to deal with then undiagnosed depression and anxiety.[8] The Tribunal is satisfied he was clearly in an unusually challenging space at the time of the 2023 Offending.
4. Finally, it is highly relevant that despite the very serious nature and sheer number of offences the SJ only imposed, inter alia, a 2 year Community Correction Order and did not put the Applicant on the Sex Register.

The risk to the Australian community should the Visa Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious misconduct

1. In the circumstances of what the Applicant was going through psychologically together with his alcohol use at the relevant times, as discussed above, the Tribunal accepts that he is now genuinely remorseful for the 2023 Offending. Further, the Tribunal is satisfied on the evidence that he now has a matured insight into such offending and is ashamed of it. This finding is underscored by the fact that the Applicant has committed no other offending either before or after (despite living in the community since the 2023 Offending until about September this year) and he has not touched alcohol since the last night of his offending in October 2023.
2. Consistently, the Applicant has voluntarily completed a 16 week alcohol and drug program in December 2024, a Men's Behaviour Change Program and a Triple P Parenting Program. He has completed the community work component of his Community Corrections Order and has otherwise compiled with its other conditions. The SJ found his offending to be out of character and that his risk of reoffending to be low and the Tribunal also so finds. Such a finding is supported by Ms Lechner's professional opinion as to low risk of reoffending and good insight, MHARS reporting low risk and the Applicant's ongoing psychological therapy, over the last couple of years, under a Mental Health Care Plan. The Tribunal also places some limited weight on the positive character references lodged on behalf of the Applicant and whilst these friends and associates only provide the Applicant with a limited protective factor in this respect, the Tribunal is satisfied that, nonetheless, there is a very low risk of the Applicant re-offending.
3. The Tribunal rejects the Respondent's contention that the 2023 Offending was of such seriousness that 'any risk' of reoffending is unacceptable: see Direction 110 para 8.1.2(1)
4. The Tribunal finds that Primary Consideration 1 only slightly favours visa cancellation.

1. There is no evidence that the Applicant has been associated with any family violence, hence this Primary Consideration is given neutral weight.

The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia

1. The Applicant has limited ties to Australia. His now ex-wife is estranged and did not provide any statement in support of the Applicant. Also, due to an untested IVO in place since July 2022 and extending to the daughter since her birth that year, the Applicant has had only 3 supervised visits as the totality of contact with his daughter since her birth. Having arrived in 2018, the Applicant has made some contributions to Australia through work for a few years in the IT field up until the end of 2023 when he was made redundant. He has only had casual delivery driver work since 2024 and has done some unpaid internship work again in IT. He is also furthering his IT qualifications.
2. The Applicant has no extended family in Australia, has some friends including one who will take him in, should he be released back into the community, and has some limited involvement with his church. He has just sold a home unit in suburban Melbourne. There is some limited evidence that he helps his elderly neighbours and otherwise is a good citizen and that he teaches safe driving.
3. Overall, the Tribunal finds that this Primary Consideration weighs slightly in the Applicant's favour.

Best interests of minor children in Australia

1. In determining the best interests of the Applicant's 3-year-old daughter the Tribunal starts with the default view that any child benefits from both parents in their lives rather than just one. Daughters need their fathers. The unusual aspect here is that the Applicant has been kept from his daughter by the untested IVO since her birth. The Tribunal accepts that with all that was going on for the Applicant in late 2022 and up to the time of the 2023 Offending it was difficult for the Applicant to see his daughter much more than he did. However, since the 2023 Offending it is not evident that the Applicant has made much of an effort to see his daughter but the continuing IVO and his apparent lack of access to proper legal assistance probably explains that for the most part. The Applicant did testify that not only does he want contact with his Australian citizen daughter but that he wants to be a very real part of her life growing up. The Applicant has essentially an unblemished character, save for the 2023 Offending, and the Tribunal finds that his daughter will benefit more if he is resident in Australia rather than limited to video and telephone contact if he is removed. This finding stands even though to date the Applicant has not fulfilled a parental role apropos of his daughter, considering Direction 110 para 8.4(4)(e)
2. The Tribunal finds this Primary Consideration weighs substantially in the Applicant's favour.

1. The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. That expectation may be informed by conduct overseas by a visa applicant and is so informed in this review application. The expectation is to be considered normatively by reference to the Direction itself. The expectations of the Australian community as a whole are to be considered (Direction 110 para 8.5(4)). It is not for the Tribunal itself to determine such expectations.[9]
2. The Tribunal accepts the Respondent's submission that the Australian community would expect the Applicant not to hold a visa because of the 2023 Offending.
3. The Tribunal finds that this Primary Consideration weighs against the Applicant.

1. The Tribunal is to consider the legal consequences of its decision. The approach is summarised by the Respondent and the evidence before the Tribunal supports the Respondent's submissions regarding the Applicant and the lack of any protection visa and claims regarding non-refoulement obligations. The Tribunal adopts such summary as follows:[10]

(a) Paragraph 9.1.2(1) of Direction 110 provides that claims which may give rise to international non-refoulement obligations can also be raised by a non-citizen who is not the subject of a protection visa finding in seeking revocation of the mandatory cancellation of their visa. Where such claims are raised, they must be considered. > > (b) There is no evidence before that the applicant has applied for a protection visa, has been the subject of a protection finding, or has otherwise made any claims which may give rise to international non-refoulment obligations. As such, there is no relevant non-refoulment obligation or protection finding which would extend the applicant's residence or prevent his removal from Australia. As the applicant is not the subject of a protection finding, the legal consequence of a cancellation decision is that the removal obligation in s 198 will continue to apply and the applicant will be detained under s 189 and s 196 of the Act unless he is granted a protection visa, he is granted a visa under s 195A, a residence determination is made under s 197AB, or the applicant is removed. > > (c) The Minister also accepts that if the Tribunal affirms the decision under review, any application for a visa other than a protection visa would be subject to s 501E of the Act, meaning that unless he left the migration zone, he would not be able to apply for any visa other than a Bridging R (Class WR) visa (as prescribed by regulation 2.12AA of the Migration Regulations 1994), for which he could only apply in response to an invitation.

2. The Tribunal finds that this other consideration weighs neutrally.

Paragraph 9.2 of Direction 110 requires consideration of 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: the applicant's age and health; whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers; and any social, medical and/or economic support available to them in that country.

1. The 34-year-old Applicant lived in India until his arrival in Australia, aged 27, in 2018. He has limited family if any in India and few real friends there, due to his absence since 2018. He will not face any language or cultural barriers if he is returned and as an Indian Citizen, he would have access to the social, medical and economic supports available to all citizens. However, he is still in therapy for depression and anxiety associated with his previous adjustment disorder and his mental health would only be impacted negatively if he was removed from Australia where his daughter and limited social contacts live; and he had to 'start his life afresh' as it were.
2. The Tribunal finds that this other consideration weighs in the Applicant's favour.

1. The Applicant's IT employment history in Australia is not particularly solid and there is no evidence that any Australian business interests will be impacted should the Applicant be removed from Australia.
2. The Tribunal finds that neutral weight should be allocated to this other consideration.

1. The Tribunal has conducted the evaluative exercise of weighing up the considerations to determine whether it is satisfied the available discretion should be exercised to revoke the visa cancellation decision.
2. On balance, having applied the findings above with the respective weights to be accorded each consideration pursuant to Direction 110, the Tribunal is satisfied that those in favour of revoking the cancellation decision under review outweigh those against. Therefore, the cancellation decision is to be revoked.

1. The decision under review is set aside and substituted with a decision to revoke the visa cancellation decision.

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

[1] The Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 19 November 2025 ('RSFIC'), RSFIC [3]-[7].

[3] G5, [5]-[28]. References with the prefix 'G' are references to documents lodged with the Tribunal pursuant

section 501G of the Migration Act (1958) Cth.

[8] Psychological Report of David Rayan written by Carla Lechner dated 17 March 2025, 4 ('Exhibit D5').

[9] See FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185 at [66]- [67], [91], [101] and [104].