The strength, nature, and duration of ties to Australia

(1) Decision-makers must consider any impact of the decision on the non-citizen's immediate family members in Australia, where those family members are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely.

(2) Where consideration is being given to whether to cancel a non-citizen's visa or revoke the mandatory cancellation of their visa, the decision-maker must also consider the strength, nature and duration of any other ties that the non-citizen has to the Australian community. In doing so, decision-makers must have regard to

1. How long the non-citizen has resided in Australia including whether the non-citizen arrived as a young child, noting that

   1. Less weight should be given where the non-citizen began offending soon after arriving in Australia; and

   2. More weight should be given to time the non-citizen has spent contributing positively to the Australian community.

   3. 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 has been living in Australia since 1995 and has extensive family in Australia, including his minor daughter, siblings, aunts and uncles, cousins, nieces and nephews. These relatives are Australian citizens or permanent residents.
2. The Applicant's wife Ms SK provided a declaration, sworn on 7 December 2023 and a statement dated 14 February 2025 and the Tribunal has had regard to the information in these documents. The Tribunal accepts the oral evidence of the Applicant and Ms SK who claim they have reconciled, provide each other with emotional support and want to continue living together in Australia. The Tribunal accepts Ms SK's evidence that she would not be able to accompany the Applicant to live in Lebanon if he was required to leave the country.
3. The Tribunal also accepts the medical evidence in relation to Ms SK. The Tribunal acknowledges the statements by Counsellor Joseph Rahmi who refers to the support he had provided to SK and her daughter. In his February 2025 statement Mr Rahmi states that the Applicant's spouse SK struggles without her husband and sought support and 'it is logical to assume' that both the Applicant's spouse and his daughter need the Applicant to remain in Australia. The Tribunal accepts that evidence.
4. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant has been residing in Australia for a period close to 30 years and that he has extensive family ties in Australia. The Applicant did not begin offending soon after arriving in Australia. He refers to his past employment and business operations and the Tribunal is prepared to accept that he has made some positive contribution to the community in the past (although the Applicant's evidence is that he had never filed a tax return in Australia and his work was irregular).
5. In addressing the impact of the decision on the Applicant's immediate family, the Applicant stated in his revocation request that his wife had struggled in his absence financially and due to her physical health and she feels loneliness as he is the 'missing puzzle' in her life. The Applicant refers to a close bond with his partner, stating they cannot live without each other. In his written submission to the Tribunal the Applicant also refers to the long-term marriage to his wife SK. He states that his wife relies on him for financial and emotional support.
6. There is no evidence of financial reliance by Ms SK upon the Applicant. The evidence before the Tribunal is that Ms SK has had regular employment while the Applicant's employment prior to imprisonment was irregular. Even if the Applicant did provide all of his income towards the family budget prior to incarceration, as he claims, the evidence before the Tribunal is that his employment was irregular and the Applicant had been reliant on Centrelink payments.
7. The Tribunal is also mindful that the Applicant's income during his lengthy incarceration would have been very limited. He told the Tribunal he worked in prison for about two years and was paid $45-$50 a week which he used to pay for phone calls and his wife would also deposited $100 into his account for food. That suggests that at least in recent years, the Applicant has been financially reliant on his wife, rather than Ms SK being reliant on him financially.
8. There is no documentary evidence before the Tribunal concerning the financial hardship that the Applicant's spouse may have experienced as a result of the Applicant's absence from the family, particularly noting his lengthy incarceration and detention. The Tribunal has been provided with a copy of a home loan statement addressed to Ms SK and her evidence is that she had purchased the home before the marriage. Ms SK told the Tribunal that in the past, her income would be used to pay the mortgage while the Applicant's income was used for family expenses but she also told the Tribunal that the Applicant began using drugs from around 2012 and would threaten her in order to get money. That does not suggest that at least in recent years, Ms SK relied on the financially.
9. The Tribunal is also mindful that the offer of employment that the Applicant presented to the Tribunal does not refer to full-time employment (at the bar) and the Tribunal does not accept as genuine the offer of employment at the brother's business. The Applicant's own evidence is that his future employment would need to take into account his medical condition. It would appear that the Applicant's capacity to significantly contribute to the family budget may be limited.
10. The Tribunal acknowledges the evidence that the Applicant's wife is in receipt of a Centrelink Carer payments, evidence of which has been presented to the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also been provided with a copy of the death certificate for Mr CK. The presented evidence does not establish the financial reliance by the Applicant's wife on the Applicant.
11. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal does not accept that the Applicant's departure from Australia would cause his family in Australia financial hardship.
12. In oral evidence Ms SK referred to the Applicant's difficult background, his nightmares and 'reliving' it during his life in Australia. Ms SK states she and the Applicant have 'reconnected' and he had supported her. She states that his past actions were due to his drug addiction but he has now 'opened up' and sought help. Ms SK stated that unlike other women who end up in hospitals or on the streets due to family violence, the harm caused by the Applicant was mainly emotional . The Tribunal does not accept that evidence, noting the description of significant physical violence set out above, and the Tribunal has formed the view that Ms SK has deliberately sought to minimise the nature of the Applicant's misconduct towards her.
13. Ms SK states that she cannot live in Lebanon and does not want her family to be broken up. Ms SK states that the Applicant's imprisonment has affected the whole family including her daughter. She referred to the close relationship between their daughter AK and the Applicant. She refers to the emotional and other reliance upon the Applicant and the effect that the separation would have on their daughter.
14. Ms SK referred to her health issues and the Tribunal accepts that evidence and also accepts that the Applicant wishes to support his partner in her various needs.
15. In his submission to the delegate dated 8 December 2023 the Applicant refers to his immediate and extended family in Australia and states that his wife and daughter strongly support the revocation.
16. In his SOFIC prepared in February 2025 the Applicant states that he has lived in Australia for 29 years and during this period he has established a strong familiar connection to Australia. The Applicant refers to the presence of his wife, daughter and three siblings and he refers to the potential impact of removal on these family members. In his February 2025 statement the Applicant also refers to his involvement in a charity since 1995 and states he had participated in fundraising efforts.
17. The Applicant states that his wife has chronic medical conditions (these include vascular condition requiring surgery, diabetes and asthma) that require ongoing attention and surgery with extended recovery period. This is consistent with Ms SK's oral evidence and the Tribunal has been provided with Ms SK's medical records. The Applicant claims that his wife's health is strained by her caregiving responsibilities for her elderly parents (Ms SK's father has recently passed away) and her ability to provide care for her daughter and parents would be 'severely impacted' by the Applicant's removal from Australia. In oral evidence Ms SK spoke about her mother's health needs and the Tribunal accepts that evidence. The Tribunal is mindful that the Applicant would not have been able to support his partner with her caring responsibilities or her own health during the lengthy period of his incarceration. Nevertheless, the Tribunal is prepared to accept that if the Applicant is to reside in the community, he might support his wife and such support will not be available if the Applicant is removed from Australia. The Tribunal accepts that the removal of the Applicant may have significantly adverse impact on his family in Australia.
18. The Applicant states that his daughter is a vulnerable individual and the emotional toll of her father's absence has been significant. The Applicant states that his daughter's academic performance and mental well-being have been negatively affected by the distress caused by the Applicant's removal. The Tribunal is prepared to accept that evidence, although the Applicant chose not to meaningfully address the issue of any distress that may have been caused to his daughter by the multiple instances of family violence perpetrated by the child's father against the child's mother, in the presence of the child. The Tribunal is mindful that if that violence is to be repeated, it is also likely to have a significant negative impact on the child's well-being.
19. The Applicant claims that his wife and daughter would not be able to relocate to Lebanon due to a variety of issues. That is also the evidence of Ms SK who spoke about her caring responsibilities for her mother. The Tribunal accepts that if the Applicant was removed from Australia, it is likely to result in separation from his immediate family and the Tribunal accepts that this will likely cause significant hardship to the Applicant and his family.
20. In oral evidence the Applicant spoke about his wife's medical condition and her need for support. The Applicant refers to his daughter's needs and his desire to support his daughter. The Applicant states that if he is removed to Lebanon, it would affect his daughter psychologically. The Tribunal is mindful that due to the lengthy period of his incarceration, the Applicant would not been able to provide meaningful practical and physical support to his family in Australia, although the Tribunal accepts that he desires to provide such support in the future. This would not be possible if the Applicant is removed from Australia.
21. The Applicant refers to the presence of his extensive family and social connections, including his uncles, aunts, nieces, nephews and cousins. The Tribunal acknowledges the multiple statements from family members in support of the Applicant and oral evidence to the Tribunal. The Applicant's brother SEK gave oral evidence about his close relationship and supportive relationship with his brother and the close relationship between the Applicant and his minor children. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of Mr SEK that he and his children have a close connection with the Applicant.
22. The Applicant refers to the statements from religious and community leaders who attest to his rehabilitative efforts and contribution. The Applicant states that he is viewed as a valued member of the community. There are before the Tribunal statements from Father Isaac and Mr Moussa, a president of a charity association.
23. The Tribunal accepts that, given the length of the Applicant's stay in Australia and the presence of his extensive family here, the Applicant has significant family ties, social, community and other ties in this country. The Tribunal accepts that his family members have an indefinite right to remain in Australia. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant's wife and daughter are unlikely to accompany him overseas if the Applicant was required to leave Australia and the cancellation of the visa may cause the breakup of the family unit. The Tribunal also accepts that in addition to the Applicant's immediate family such as his partner and daughter, his extended family, including his siblings, nieces and nephews could be adversely impacted by the Applicant's departure from Australia.
24. The Tribunal accepts that considerable hardship would be caused to the Applicant and his family if the Applicant was required to leave Australia. The Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs heavily in favour of the revocation.

The best interests of minor children in Australia

1. Paragraph 8.4(1) of the Direction requires a decision-maker to make a determination about whether cancellation or refusal under section 501, or non-revocation under section 501CA is in the best interests of a child affected by the decision.
2. Paragraphs 8.4(2) and 8.4(3) respectively contain further considerations. The former provides that for their interests to be considered, the relevant child (or children) must be under 18 years of age at the time when a decision about whether or not to refuse or cancel the visa or not to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision is being made. The latter provides that if there are two or more relevant children, the best interests of each child should be given individual consideration to the extent that their interests may differ.
3. The Applicant's daughter was born in 2008 and is a minor. In his revocation request the Applicant states that he speaks to his daughter daily and she visits him in jail and he refers to having a close relationship with his daughter and his support for her. In his submission to the Tribunal the Applicant states that his daughter would suffer emotionally and academically without his presence.
4. The Applicant's daughter AK provided a declaration sworn on 4 December 2023 and an undated statement to the Tribunal. She also gave oral evidence to the Tribunal. AK refers to the strong relationship she has with her father and the impact of the visa decision on her and the family. (In her written statements AK makes no reference to the past family violence incidents, rather, portraying a picture of the happy family.) AK states that her mother is limited in the support she provides and therefore she is more restricted than others to do things. AK refers to the 'devastating toll' her father's absence has had on her and her mother. AK refers to the impact on her and the family if the Applicant is deported. There are before the Tribunal a number of family photographs and evidence of the family's contact during the Applicant's incarceration.
5. In oral evidence AK also spoke about the close relationship with her father and her view of her father as being a good person who was always helpful towards others. AK states that she feels stressed and anxious about the prospect of being separated with her father and she states that she has developed anxiety and panic attacks.
6. In his SOFIC and his statement to the Tribunal prepared in February 2025 the Applicant claims that he has maintained a significant relationship with his daughter and they have a strong emotional bond. The Applicant states that before his incarceration the Applicant played a crucial role in his daughter's upbringing. The Applicant states that his daughter expressed a deep emotional connection and the adverse impact of his absence. The Applicant states that he has committed to rehabilitation and wants to integrate positively into his family's life. The Applicant states that given his daughter's age and continued dependence on him for emotional and financial support, he can play a constructive parental role in the future. The Applicant refers to his daughter's 'critical time' in her education and states that she needs stability and parental support to achieve her goals. The Applicant acknowledges that past offending violence that occurred in the presence of his daughter but states that this was linked to substance abuse which has since taken steps to address through rehabilitation and counselling. In oral evidence, the Applicant concedes that he may have harmed his daughter by harming his wife in front of the child. The Applicant also admits using drug Ice in front of his daughter and he admits being a bad influence on his daughter in the past. The Applicant made a promise to be a good father if given another chance.
7. The Applicant refers to his wife's limited ability to fulfil the role of primary caregiver for their child given her own health issues and other responsibilities.
8. The Respondents concedes that it is in the best interest of AK that the Applicant remains in Australia but submits that the weight of that consideration should be mitigated by the impact of family violence that AK would have witnessed in the past.
9. As noted above, the Tribunal accepts that the Applicant has a strong relationship with his daughter and that that his daughter may rely on him emotionally and financially (at least in the future if the Applicant secures employment). The Tribunal accepts the evidence about the effects of separation of the Applicant and his family in Australia. The Tribunal accepts that the ongoing presence of the Applicant in his daughter's life would be of benefit to the child and in her best interests, although that would only be the case if the Applicant abstains from further domestic violence offending and for the reasons set out above, the Tribunal does not accept the Applicant's risk of reoffending is 'low', as he claims. While the Tribunal acknowledges the evidence of the wife and daughter that they do not perceive the Applicant as a threat, the Tribunal is of the view that their perceptions of the Applicant's future behaviour are likely to have very limited, if any, impact on the Applicant's future conduct.
10. The Applicant also refers to the best interests of his nieces and nephews. His brother Mr SEK spoke about the good relationship between his minor children and the Applicant and he states that the Applicant is 'the second father figure' to his children and a God-father for his eldest daughter. Mr SEK said there was no personal contact between his children and the visa Applicant while he was in jail but they have had phone contact with the Applicant in jail, which he believes was not sufficient, and since the Applicant was moved to VIDC, they have visited the Applicant and have more frequent contact.
11. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant has a good relationship with his nephews and nieces and the Tribunal is prepared to accept that it might be in their best interest to retain that personal relationship with the Applicant. The Tribunal is mindful that there is no suggestion the Applicant has any parental responsibilities in relation to these children. There is no suggestion that the children's parents do not meet such parental obligations. The evidence indicates that the children had been able to maintain a relationship through telephone contact while the visa Applicant had spent time in jail, even if SEK claims that was not adequate. Such contact can be maintained irrespective of the Applicant's country of residence. In all the circumstances, the Tribunal gives some, but limited weigh to the best interests of these children in favour of the revocation.
12. As the Tribunal has formed the view that the best interests of the Applicant's daughter require his presence in Australia, the Tribunal gives this consideration significant weight in favour of the revocation.

1. Sub-clause 8.5 of Direction 110 provides that the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Paragraph 8.5(1) of the Direction sets out the government's view in relation to community expectations:

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 the Direction provides that the above expectations of the Australian community apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
3. Paragraph 8.5(4) of the Direction provides guidance on how the expectations of the Australian community are to be determined. This paragraph states:

This consideration is about the expectations of the Australian community as a whole, and in this respect, decision-makers should proceed on the basis of the Government's views as articulated above, without independently assessing the community's expectations in the particular case.

4. Paragraph 8.5(4) is consistent with the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs,[2] which affirmed the approach established in previous authorities that 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. Instead, the Tribunal is to be guided by the Government's views as to the expectations of the Australian community, which are to be found in the Direction.[3]
5. The Applicant submits in his submission to the delegate that the community expects that we provide 'a fair go' and believes in second chances and the community does not abandon individuals and separate families. The Applicant submits that the community would expect offenders to be supported with rehabilitation rather than inflict further punishment after completing their sentence and that it would be inconsistent with Australian values to refuse the revocation. The basis for such broad statements is unclear and unidentified. Paragraph 8.5(2) contains a statement of the Government's views as to the expectations of the Australian community, which operates to ascribe to the whole of the Australian community an expectation aligning with that of the executive government which the decision maker must have regard to. The Direction provides that the community expects the non-citizens to obey the Australian laws.
6. In his submission to the Tribunal the Applicant refers to his past offending stating that his past offences such as family violence and violent crimes fall within the list of types of criminal conduct at Paragraph 8.5 of the Direction that are considered to be of significant concern to the Community. The Applicant submits that given the breadth and gravity of his criminal history and his involvement in violent offences and domestic violence, the expectation of the community that individuals with such records should not be allowed to remain in the country is 'clear and unequivocal'. The Tribunal agrees with that proposition. The Tribunal has formed the view that, given the seriousness and repeated and at times violent nature of the Applicant's offending, the community expectations would weigh against the revocation.
7. The Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs heavily against the revocation. The Applicant concedes that this consideration weighs against the revocation.

1. Paragraph 9.1 of the Direction directs a decision-maker to take into account the following:

(1) Decision-makers should be mindful that unlawful non-citizens are, in accordance with section 198, liable to removal from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable in the circumstances specified in that section, 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 noncitizen...

1. The Applicant is not a person who is covered by a protection finding.
2. In his revocation request the Applicant refers to the hardships he had escaped in Lebanon and claims he found freedom and stability in Australia. The Applicant states that he escaped Lebanon and its cruelties and the militia groups. The Applicant claims in his written evidence that the militia groups still want to kill him if he is found. In oral evidence the Applicant referred to the multiple militia groups operating in Lebanon stating that the situation is not safe but he claims he would not be specifically targeted. The Applicant also told the Tribunal that he would be targeted by the Syrians because of his past army involvement and he also claims that he could be targeted by members of the Hezbollah if he is recognised.
3. The Tribunal finds the Applicant's claims to be extremely vague and inconsistent. There is no evidence as to why he was of any interests to the militia groups in the past and, importantly, no evidence as to why he would be of any interest to the militia groups in the future after 30 years of his residence in Australia and after at least 30 years since the Applicant left the Lebanese army. There is no suggestion that any Lebanese militia group or any Syrian group, or indeed, anyone else, had made any inquiries about the Applicant or approached him or his family in the past. There is nothing to support the Applicant's claim that he is, or will be, of any adverse interest to anyone in Lebanon.
4. The Tribunal has been provided with a copy of the RRT decision made in April 1999. In that decision, the RRT noted that the Applicant arrived in Australia in 1995 but did not apply for a visa until May 1998 and, despite being invited to attend a hearing, had failed to do so (he told the Tribunal he was unaware of the hearing but he was sufficiently aware of the Tribunal decision to lodge an appeal). In the Tribunal's view, if the Applicant did genuinely have a fear of persecution, he would not delay the application for protection by some three years and he would take more interest in the process so as to take up the opportunity to present oral evidence to the RRT. The fact that he did not is suggestive that the Applicant did not have a subjective fear of persecution.
5. The Tribunal also notes that the claims made presently (that the Applicant would be targeted by various militia groups) do not appear to be consistent with the claim he had made in his protection visa application in 1998 as he claimed he was encouraged to be a spy by the Syrians. The Applicant confirmed in his oral evidence to the present Tribunal that such claims were untrue. The inconsistencies in the Applicant's claims support the Tribunal's view that the Applicant has not been truthful in his claims concerning the harm he fears upon return to Lebanon.
6. The Applicant's evidence is that he and his family had travelled to Lebanon around 2011 to visit his father who was not well and the family had spent one or two months in Lebanon. There is no evidence that the Applicant had been harmed, or targeted in any way during his visit to his home country and he told the Tribunal that nothing happened to him during that visit. The Applicant states that there was no war in Lebanon at that time but his claims of fear of harm seem to stem from his past military service, rather than the existing war.
7. The Applicant then told the Tribunal that during that trip he was fearful for his safety but he had to travel because his father was unwell and he did not travel around the country but stayed in his village. The Applicant told the Tribunal that if he was to stay in his village, he would be safe but the danger might be if he was to travel to a bigger city, which he might have to do. The Applicant also told the Tribunal that during his trip in 2011 he visited the bigger cities twice and there is no suggestion that he had experienced any harm.
8. The Applicant's evidence is that he travelled with his wife and daughter. The Tribunal does not accept that he would have put his family at risk of harm if he was genuinely fearful of harm in Lebanon. The Applicant's written evidence also refers to a relative suggesting the Applicant stay longer for the hunting season. Again, the Tribunal does not consider that the family would invite the Applicant to extend his stay in order to go hunting if there was any chance of harm.
9. The Applicant also claims he could be called up to fight if he was in Lebanon. There is no probative evidence to indicate that either specifically the Applicant (e.g. due to his past military service) or others with similar characteristics (e.g. men of his age) are being called up for military service. In the Tribunal's view, if there is presently a policy to call up men of a particular age to fight in the armed services, evidence of such policy would be available. On the limited evidence before it, the Tribunal does not accept the Applicant's claim that he would be called up to do military services.
10. The combination of these factors - the paucity and inconsistency of the Applicant's claims, the circumstances of his earlier protection visa application and of his trip to Lebanon in 2011 - cause the Tribunal to reject the Applicant's claim that he has a genuine fear of harm in Lebanon for any reason. The Tribunal has formed the view that these claims have been fabricated to support the present application. The Tribunal is satisfied that Australia's non-refoulement obligations do not arise in this case.
11. In his submission of 10 March 2025, the Applicant confirms that his claims do not give rise to Australia's non-refoulement obligations and are made expressly outside the invocation of Australia's non-refoulement obligations. In oral evidence the Applicant's representative confirmed that there is insufficient evidence to make claims with respect to protection obligations or non-refoulement obligations and such claims are not being advanced in this case. Rather, the Applicant submits that these claims are being raised in relation to impediment to removal. These have been addressed elsewhere in the context of the other consideration.
12. In considering other legal consequences of the decision, the Tribunal accepts that the cancellation of the visa under s. 501 means that the Applicant will not be entitled to be granted another visa and will not be able to return to Australia to be with his family or for any other reason. He would be subject to removal and will remain in detention until his removal can be effected and the Applicant submits such detention could be lengthy, given the practical barriers such as obtaining travel documents, flight availability and other considerations. The Applicant states that if he remains in immigration detention his personal liberty will be infringed.
13. The Tribunal accepts that if the Applicant's visa remains cancelled, there may be a lengthy period of detention before his removal. The Tribunal accepts this could cause hardship to the Applicant. The Tribunal also accepts that cancellation will lead to the Applicant's removal from Australia and separation (possibly permanent) from his Australian family.
14. The Tribunal is of the view that consideration weighs heavily in favour of the revocation.

1. Paragraph 9.2 of the Direction directs a decision-maker to take into account 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 any substantial language or cultural barriers; and > > c) any social, medical and/or economic support available to that non-citizen in that country.

2. The Applicant is 60 years of age. He refers to his mental illness, PTSD and depression and there is some medical evidence in support of these claims, as well as the Applicant's IHMS records. In his submission to the Tribunal, the Applicant refers to substance abuse and gambling disorder. He told the Tribunal he has high cholesterol, issues with his back and shoulder pain and an issue with his lungs. The Applicant states that he had previously sustained a back and shoulder injury which, he claims, affected his ability to engage in employment.
3. The Applicant refers to the situation in Lebanon, by reference to the DFAT country report, stating that there is instability, economic and political crisis and lack of adequate medical care. The Applicant submits that, given his mental and physical health conditions, he would face 'substantial challenges' in accessing appropriate medical and psychological care in Lebanon where the healthcare system is 'reportedly' on the brink of collapse due to economic crisis. He states that lack of adequate and affordable mental health services in Lebanon, combined with shortages of essential medication, would pose a serious risk to his well-being.
4. The Applicant also states that there is no proper government structure in Lebanon, no way of living or working. The Applicant states that he will not be able to survive while his wife and daughter - who were born in Australia - could not 'handle a holiday' there. The Applicant provided a copy of the Smart Traveller advice on Lebanon and the DFAT report concerning the situation in Lebanon. In his submission to the Tribunal the Applicant also refers to volatile security situation in Lebanon, ongoing armed conflict and widespread instability, indiscriminate attacks and civil unrest posting threats to personal safety. The Applicant refers to increased crime, terrorism and targeted attacks and lack of stable law enforcement presence. The Applicant submits that his personal circumstances place him at heightened risk due to his inability to secure safe passage, the absence of reliable state protection and exposure to indiscriminate violence. The Applicant states that he would be exposed to a substantial and ongoing risk of harm.
5. The Applicant's brother SEK spoke about the generally unsafe situation in Lebanon and in the local village, the murders, thefts, rapes etc.
6. In oral evidence the Applicant told the Tribunal that he has nothing in Lebanon and that there are no medications available and no banks. The Applicant states that he could be called to do military service and he refers to the generally unsafe situation in Lebanon and the ongoing war.
7. The Tribunal is prepared to accept that the Applicant may have limited (if any) economic and medical support in Lebanon and that the extent of such support is unlikely to be what the Applicant has experienced in Australia. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant's evidence about the present situation in Lebanon and accepts that the Applicant may have limited employment opportunities, limited capacity to support himself, limited access to health services and other supports.
8. There are no apparent language or cultural barriers as the Applicant has spent the first 29 years of his life in Lebanon.
9. The Applicant refers to the length of his residence in Australia, stating that he is now unfamiliar with its socio-economic conditions, government structures and is detached from Lebanese cultural, economic and social framework, making reintegration difficult. The Tribunal accepts that evidence.
10. The Applicant states in his written submission that his mother and two sisters remain in Lebanon but have not been identified as being in a position to provide him with emotional or financial support. He told the Tribunal in oral evidence that he could live with his mother and sister in Lebanon. It is not entirely clear to the Tribunal why the Applicant's mother or sisters would not be able to provide him with emotional support and the Tribunal notes that the pre-release report prepared in December 2024 refers to the Applicant retaining ongoing support from his family in Lebanon. Nevertheless, the Tribunal accepts that the Applicant may not have access to any financial support from these relatives.
11. The Applicant refers to the economic crisis in Lebanon and collapse of basic infrastructure. He states that he has been absent from the labour market for 30 years and might not be able to secure stable employment while his work experience would provide limited employment prospects. The Tribunal is prepared to accept that evidence.
12. The Applicant's other claims with respect to impediment to removal are summarised elsewhere. The Applicant refers to lack of employment, medical treatment, financial and other support in Lebanon and general lack of safety in Lebanon. The Applicant refers to generalised hardship and lack of safety in the country. The Applicant told the Tribunal that he has cousins and other extended family in Lebanon and that he had spent some time with the family in 2011 but he claims his family is not in the position to help him financially and he would only be able to find a job that would offer very little help.
13. The Applicant states that he needs specialised treatment for mental health care needs, to support abstinence from drugs and alcohol and to deal with his emotional trauma from family separation and such support would not be available to him in Lebanon.
14. Given the length of the Applicant's stay in Australia, his limited links to Lebanon and the likelihood of inadequate supports and medical care, as well as the general safety concerns in Lebanon at present, the Tribunal accepts that the Applicant may experience significant hardship if he is removed from Australia. That is, the Tribunal generally accepts the Applicant's claims about the extent and nature of hardship he would experience in Lebanon.
15. The Applicant refers to his wife's medical and other needs and states that he needs to remain in Australia to support his wife and daughter. Ms SK gave evidence about her health and the need to have support in Australia and the Tribunal also acknowledges and accepts the evidence of the Applicant's daughter. The Tribunal accepts that separation from his family, and the inability to support the family and meet the family's needs, would also cause hardship to the Applicant.
16. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant may experience significant detriment if removed to Lebanon. The Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs very heavily in favour of the revocation.

1. Paragraph 9.3.1 of Direction 110 directs a decision-maker to take into account the following:

Decision-makers must consider any impact on Australian business interests if the non-citizen is not allowed to enter or remain in Australia, noting that an employment link would generally only be given weight where the decision under section 501 or 501CA would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project, or delivery of an important service in Australia.'

1. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to indicate that any Australian business would be impacted if the Applicant is not allowed to remain in Australia. This consideration is neutral.

1. Evidence before the Tribunal indicates that there may have been non-compliance by the Applicant with immigration laws. (The Applicant had been given a warning in relation to the provision of self-incriminating evidence.) Thus,

(a) in his revocation request the Applicant states that he failed to mention his convictions on the Incoming Passenger Card (IPC) in August 2011. He states that this was because he could not write English and his wife completed the IPC and was unaware of his convictions. > > (b) The Applicant told the Tribunal that he initially travelled to Australia on a three months' visa in 1995 and did not apply for a substantive visa until 1998. The evidence shows that the Applicant had been residing in Australia as an unlawful non-citizen between July 1996 and May 1998 and between June 1999 and April 2004 and the Applicant concedes that he remained in Australia as an unlawful non-citizen. > > (c) The Applicant also conceded in his oral evidence to the Tribunal that his protection visa application contained untruthful information and that he sought protection in order to regularise his immigration status. The Applicant claims he remained in Australia unlawfully because he preferred living in Australia and did not wish to return to Lebanon. > > (d) The Applicant told the Tribunal that he had been working in Australia while an unlawful non-citizen and also before he was granted permission to work. He states that he sometimes worked on a full-time basis but mostly his work was casual. The Applicant told the Tribunal that he was paid in cash, or his brother would arrange work for him, and he had never filed a tax return while living in Australia.

2. In the Tribunal's view, these actions show the Applicant's general disregard for the Australian immigration laws.

1. The Tribunal has found that the Applicant has a lengthy criminal record and that he does not pass the character test. The Tribunal has considered if there is another reason why the decision to cancel his visa should be revoked.
2. The Tribunal has found that the Applicant has committed several serious offences, his offending took place over an extended period and involved violence and threats of violence towards others. The offending was of escalating nature, resulting in the significant term if imprisonment for the most recent offending. The Tribunal found the offending to be serious and the nature of harm, if the Applicant were to engage in further offending, to be significant.
3. The Tribunal has formed the view that despite his claims of rehabilitation, the Applicant continues to lack insight into his offending and minimises his role in past offending. The Tribunal has formed the view that there remains a real risk of the Applicant engaging in further offending. Given the finding that future offending may result in significant harm to others and the fact that there remains a risk of reoffending, the Tribunal finds that the protection of the community consideration weighs very heavily against the revocation.
4. The Applicant had also engaged in multiple family violence offending. This consideration weighs very heavily against the revocation.
5. The Tribunal has also determined that the community expectations weigh against revocation and, given the nature and extent of the Applicant's past offending, the Tribunal gives this consideration significant weight.
6. The Tribunal accepts that it is in the best interest of the Applicant's daughter, nieces and nephews that the Applicant remains in Australia and that his visa cancellation is revoked. Given the interests of the Applicant's daughter, the Tribunal gives this consideration significant weight in favour of the revocation.
7. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant will experience significant impediment if removed, given in particular his health condition, personal circumstances (including age and employability), lack of adequate supports in Lebanon and the general safety situation in his home country. The Tribunal gives this consideration significant weight in favour of the revocation.
8. The Applicant has significant family ties to Australia and has been residing in this country for a very lengthy period of approximately 30 years. The Tribunal found that his family in Australia would be adversely affected by the Applicant's departure from Australia. The Tribunal places significant weight on the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's ties in favour of the revocation.
9. The Tribunal rejected the Applicant's claims relating to Australia's protection or non-refoulement obligations. However, the Tribunal accepts that there are significant legal consequences to the decision, noting in particular that the Applicant will not be able to seek other visas, would be liable to be removed from Australia and separated from his family, and that there may be a period of detention before the Applicant can be removed. The Tribunal has determined that the legal consequences of the decision weigh in favour of the revocation.
10. Having considered the totality of the circumstances, the Tribunal has decided to give the greatest weight to the primary considerations of the protection of the Australian community, the expectations of the community and the fact that offending involved family violence.
11. The Tribunal is mindful that paragraph 7(2) of Direction 110 states that the primary consideration of [protection of the Australian community] is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations. In the particular circumstances of this case, the Tribunal has decided that this, and the protection of the community considerations outweigh other considerations.
12. The Tribunal has decided that the decision under review should be affirmed.

1. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant's Class BS Partner (Migrant) visa.

N. Khorami, S.A.M Legal and Migration Consultancy

[1] See R v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131; (2004) 60 NSWLR 168 at [115].

[2] [2019] FCAFC 185 ('FYBR').

[3] See Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 348; Afu v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1311; YNQY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1466 and FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 500.