1. Paragraph 8.1 of Direction 110 provides in part as follows:

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

The nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct to date

1. Sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction requires a decision-maker (with the exception of certain crimes or conduct) to have regard to the sentence(s) imposed by the Courts for a crime or crimes of a non-citizen. Subparagraph (e) requires the decision maker to have regard to the frequency of the non-citizen's offending and/or whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness.
2. In considering the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's criminal offending and other conduct to date, the Tribunal has had regard to the Police Facts Sheets (acknowledging that these do not represent the agreed statement of facts), court documents and sentencing remarks, where available.
3. The Tribunal has considered the sentencing remarks of Magistrate Brender made in April 2021 in relation to the breach of the AVO and common assault. The facts are said to be as follows. The Applicant was subject to an AVO which prevented him from being within 200 meters where protected people lived and the Applicant attended that location to see the children. He was involved in punching motion then slapping his wife, grabbing her by the wrist and slapping her on the head several times. It is stated that the Applicant was on a community corrections order for common assault and stalk / intimidate of the same victim at the time of that offending.
4. The Tribunal has been provided with the sentencing remarks of Judge Bennett SC made in February 2021 in relation to the 'use of carriage service' offence. The particulars of the offence are said to be that in March 2019 the Applicant used a mobile phone to send communications with the intention of inducing a false belief that an explosive had been left on Singapore Airlines flight.
5. His Honour states that the misconduct involved two phone calls within a finite timeline. His Honour stated that the seriousness of the behaviour rises due to the factors such as the terms of the conversation and the consequences imposed upon the passengers of the aircraft, the authorities' response and the disruption of travel.
6. His Honour describes the facts of the offending as follows. The Applicant's mother and son made arrangements to travel on a plane to Australia but there was no written consent from the child's parent. A staff member provided his mobile number to facilitate the submission of the written consent. It is recoded that subsequently, the Applicant used that mobile number to call a staff member at Mumbai International Airport to state there was a bomb onboard the flight. The Applicant also provided his name and stated that his mother and child were on the flight. As a result of the risk assessment, an emergency landing was ordered for Singapore Airport. The Applicant made another call later in the day to the same mobile. He again stated that there was a bomb on the flight. When the Applicant attended Sydney Airport to collect his mother and child, he was arrested. In the police interview, the Applicant referred to having made some calls to the airport services and, after becoming angry, made a bomb threat. When he was told that the Singaporean government deployed fighter jets as a result of the threat, the Applicant said, 'it's their fault, if they gave me the information I wanted, it wouldn't have happened'. The Applicant stated that he had 3 whiskies the night before the threat but claimed he was not intoxicated at the time the threat was made. It is stated that the Applicant was cooperative during the interview but demonstrated no remorse, blaming the airport and the airlines for his actions.
7. His Honour states that as a result of the bomb threat, the two flights were put on high alert, the passengers were informed of the bomb threat and the flight was escorted by two F16 planes for the landing in Singapore. The passengers were not permitted to disembark until cleared by the security personnel. There were 263 passengers and 18 crew, the flight was delayed due to rescreening of the luggage with several flow-on effects, including 29 passengers missing the connecting flights. His Honour noted that there would have been some passengers with increased anxiety and distress due to these consequences. His Honour also noted the substantial cost incurred as a result of the response to the threat.
8. His Honour notes that the Applicant admitted being a user of alcohol but minimised his level of use and while the Applicant claimed he had actively engaged in drug and alcohol services, inquiries indicated that he had not engaged or that these were minimal and of superficial quality. His Honour found it 'difficult' to accept the Applicant's claim that he was worried about his family when making the threat. His Honour referred to the sentencing reports, with one report indicating that the Applicant was "exited" from a drug alcohol abstinence program due to non-compliance. His Honour referred to various reports relating to the Applicant's rehabilitation and mental health, as well as character evidence. His Honour rejected the submission that the conduct was in the lower range of objective seriousness and formed the view that the Applicant's prospect of rehabilitation "could not be said to be strong" in light of his continuing misuse of alcohol and tendency to return to its misuse. The Tribunal has also been provided with the police Statement of Facts in relation to this offence.
9. The Tribunal has considered the police facts sheet in relation to the 2020 common assault offence. It is stated that the victim was the Applicant's spouse. On the evening in July 2020 the victim was cooking when the Applicant approached her aggressively and extremely intoxicated. The Applicant had slung his arm attempting to hit the victim. The victim in self-defence tried to push the Applicant away as she was scared for her safety. The Applicant closed his hand and shook his fist towards the victim stating, 'I'm going to, I'm going to'. He was highly intoxicated and had been drinking for three days. The victim had pushed and slapped the accused as she was afraid of him, then went to the neighbours to call the police and ambulance.
10. The Tribunal has been provided with the police facts sheet in relation to the 2020 offending. It is stated that in September 2020 the victim was at home with the children and the Applicant attended the location requesting to see the children. He attended the home and was argumentative with the victim and abusive towards her. Several times the Applicant raised his fists towards the victim and pulled his arm back mimicking a punching motion. He had taken hold of the victim's arm and slapped her to the right side of the head with his hand. As an attempt was made to remove the Applicant, the Applicant grabbed the victim by the wrists causing minor scratches to her arms. When outside the premises he again slapped the victim to the head several times.
11. The Tribunal has been provided with the police facts sheet in relation to the 2018 offending. It is stated that the police were conducting random breath testing and stopped the Applicant. The test revealed a positive reading and the Applicant was placed under arrest.
12. The Respondent submits that the Applicant had committed violent offences against his wife and contravened the AVO and such offending must be viewed very seriously under the Direction. The Respondent refers to the reasoning in Patterson v MHA[2] at [60]. The Respondent submits that the hoax threat offence must also be viewed seriously, given the consequences of the Applicant's actions, the remarks of the sentencing judge and the sentence imposed. The Respondent submits that while the Applicant has not been a frequent offender, there has been a trend of increasing seriousness with the first offending being drink driving in 2018 and the subsequent hoax threat offence resulting in a two year sentence.
13. The Tribunal finds that the 'use of carriage service' offence had been very serious. The threats had the potential to, and in all likelihood did, cause distress and anxiety to the passengers, significant inconvenience and potential financial losses to those whose flights were delayed or who missed connecting flights, as well as to the airline and other organisations (diversion of flight, deployment of military jets, etc). The sentencing judge referred to the substantial costs to the authorities in dealing with the threats. In his written evidence to the Tribunal the Applicant concedes that his conduct must be regarded as serious.
14. The Tribunal also considers the family violence offending and the breach of the AVO to have been serious offences because they would have caused the victim to be fearful. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant had engaged in serious offending of a nature that can cause and did cause harm to others.

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

1. The Tribunal has considered the risk to the community, should the Applicant reoffend. Paragraph 8.1.2(1) provides that 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 of the conduct and the harm that would be caused, if it were to be repeated, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable.
2. Paragraph 8.1.2(2) provides that 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; > > (b) the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account: > > > (b) - information and evidence on the risk of the non-citizen re-offending; and > > > > (b) - evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since their most recent offence.

3. Assessing the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community that may occur if the Applicant were to engage in further criminal or other serious conduct, is informed by the nature of his offending to date, including any escalation in the offending. This assessment also notes that Direction 110 provides that the Australian community's tolerance for harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. Some conduct and the harm that would be caused, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable.

The nature of harm should the Applicant reoffend

1. The Respondent submits that there is a risk that the Applicant will reoffend and that risk is unacceptable as reoffending would expose the Australian community to significant physical, psychological and financial harm. The Respondent submits that the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's criminal offending weighs heavily against the revocation.
2. In his submission to the earlier Tribunal the Applicant concedes that if he was to engage in similar conduct in which he engaged in 2019, there could be significant risk of harm to members of the community and expense of public resources. The harm from such conduct could be significant.
3. In this case, the Applicant engaged in family violence offending that involved actual or threatened violence against his partner. The Tribunal considers that repeat family violence offending could cause serious physical and / or psychological harm to the victim. The 'use of carriage service' offence, if repeated, also has the potential of causing significant degree of anxiety and stress for passengers and costs to the airline company and other agencies. The Tribunal finds that there could be very significant harm, if the Applicant were engage in further criminal or other serious conduct of similar nature.

1. The Tribunal has considered the likelihood of the Applicant reoffending. In his revocation request the Applicant stated that he did not use alcohol in his home country. The Applicant states that he came to Australia in 2009 with his partner. The Applicant outlined his immigration history and provided a number of supporting documents, including forensic reports and a psychologist's report, several character references (with updated references provided to the present Tribunal) and letters of support, including from his partner. The Applicant referred to his close relationship with his children and states that he cannot bear the thought of being separated from them.
2. In the submission to the delegate dated 14 September 2022 the Applicant also confirmed that he failed to disclose his criminal convictions in the Incoming Passenger Card and states that when returning from overseas in December 2018 he was extremely depressed about his situation, he was drinking excessively and failed to pay attention to detail. The Applicant stated that he was seeking treatment for his major depressive disorder and alcohol use disorder.
3. With respect to the bomb threat, the Applicant stated that he committed the offence when he was drunk and unable to appreciate the consequences of his actions. He stated that he is committed to abstain from alcohol and intends to continue with counselling. He has been compliant with the medication regime and had engaged in group programs at the rehabilitation centre. The Applicant refers to his past hospital admissions and treatment for alcohol use disorder and the professional views of Dr Bench. The Applicant states that he started drinking at the age of 31 and had been seeking treatment for depression from the age of 32. The Applicant states that when experiencing alcohol withdrawal, he would have auditory hallucinations.
4. With respect to the breach of the AVO the Applicant states that he visited his family home to spend time with the children. The Applicant claims he was intoxicated at the time of the offending. The Applicant refers to the support of his partner and the regular contact he had with his partner and children. The Applicant stated that he intended to seek psychiatric help once he was in the community. The Applicant expressed remorse for his conduct and stated that he was willing to make an undertaking not to approach his family if intoxicated. The Applicant referred to his qualifications as a cook, stating there was skills shortage in that area in Australia, so that he would be of benefit to Australia.
5. In his written submission to the earlier Tribunal the Applicant noted the absence of any record of breaches and infractions during his incarceration. He states that he had an 'exemplary' record in prison and engaged in several courses. The Applicant states that he had a minimum security classification while in prison and was granted parole at the earliest opportunity. He states that he repeatedly expressed remorse for his past conduct and had identified several factors indicating he would not reoffend:

(a) Awareness of the pain he had caused to others by the 'hoax threat' and to his wife and children through alcohol abuse and absence during incarceration; > > (b) Willingness to participate in a prison environment (it is unclear to the Tribunal how that is indicative of a low risk of reoffending given that the Applicant had no choice but to participate in the prison environment); > > (c) Minimum security classification and absence of adverse behaviour in prison; > > (d) The experience of 12 months' incarceration; > > (e) Availability of family support upon release, reconciliation with his partner and likelihood of future employment in a skilled occupation. The Applicant submits that he has realised the effect of his imprisonment on himself and his family and he will have family support and community support upon release. The Respondent submits that the presence of the family will not act as a protective factor in the community as it did do so in the past; > > (f) Realisation that future offending may lead to his removal from Australia which he regards as his home, and separation from family; and > > (g) The experience of immigration detention since February 2022.

6. The Applicant submits that the risk of reoffending is low. He states that the contributing factor to all his offending is alcohol and once that is removed, there is no risk of reoffending.
7. The Applicant provided a declaration to the present Tribunal prepared in February 2026. The Applicant refers to his rehabilitation and treatment to address past behaviour. The Applicant refers to his relationship with his children and his plans for the future if released into the community. In his declaration of 29 May 2023 the Applicant refers to his rehabilitation, including participation in a number of programs including stress and depression management, social anxiety, drug and alcohol abuse and conflict resolution. The Applicant states that he regularly attends AA meetings, participates in the Smart Recovery program and attends counselling. The Applicant refers to his long abstinence from alcohol and outlines his plans for the future. He also provided evidence of a job offer.
8. In the submission to the earlier Tribunal the Respondent refers to the evidence indicating the Applicant suffers from severe alcohol use disorder with the recommendation that he should undertake prolonged inpatient rehabilitation, substance abuse counselling and ongoing psychiatric supervision and the Respondent submits it cannot be accepted that the Applicant has been rehabilitated. The Respondent notes that there is no evidence that the Applicant had engaged in any rehabilitation services in relation to the alcohol use disorder and his past attempts in the community had been unsuccessful as the Applicant had been subject to two detoxification programs and the last time had been sober in the community was five months. The Respondent notes that the Applicant had received some psychiatric and psychological support, he provided no evidence of any intention to engage in the commended treatment in the community, instead claiming he is rehabilitated. The Respondent notes that while the Applicant claims he has been abstinent from alcohol since incarceration, he also admits to drinking home brew while in detention. The Respondent submits that the Applicant continues to use alcohol to manage his emotions. The Respondent submits that there is a very real risk of the Applicant reoffending.
9. The Applicant provided to the delegate a written statement from his partner Ms Korat. Ms Korat stated that while in India, the Applicant did not consume alcohol but while in Australia, due to the frustrations with the visa process, he took alcohol to help cope with the stress. Ms Korat states that the Applicant's behaviour became worse in 2017 due to the separation from his family and the visa issues. Ms Korat refers to the Applicant's voluntary activities and the hardship that the family would experience if the Applicant was to leave Australia. The Applicant also presented a number of character references and the Tribunal accepts that those who provided these may believe the Applicant to be of good character and a contributing member of the community. Ms Korat provided an unsigned declaration to the first Tribunal in May 2023 in which she expressed her support for the Applicant and stated that she would not travel to India with him if the Applicant was to leave Australia as she and the children would have no future there. Ms Korat also refers to the hardship she has experienced.
10. In oral evidence to the present Tribunal the Applicant referred to the length of time he has spent in detention, stating that he is under constant stress and misses his family. The Applicant states that he has developed an understanding of his behaviour which he addressed through counselling and rehabilitation. With respect to the 2019 offending the Applicant states that he was selfish and did not think about the impact on others but he has changed now and has 'learned his lesson'. With respect to the family violence offending the Applicant stated that he reacted aggressively and he did not follow the help that was offered him earlier.
11. The Applicant told the Tribunal that he first started drinking socially in 2013 and gradually his drinking increased, causing problems. The Applicant states that past rehabilitation did not help as he was under pressure and not coping with his emotions. The Applicant states that he had not used alcohol since 2023 even though alcohol is available in detention and the last time he was offered alcohol, he refused. The Applicant referred to his learnings from the various rehabilitation programs and counselling and states that he intends to continue counselling and engage in supports if released from detention. He also spoke about the job offer, stating he could work as a chef in a friend's café.
12. The Applicant spoke about his relationship with his wife, stating that he understands his wrongdoing and she has forgiven him and they have been gradually rebuilding their relationship. The Applicant spoke about his relationship with his children. The Applicant states that if he is removed, it would affect his son's mental health, self-esteem and schooling.
13. Under cross examination the Applicant concedes that he used to drink and was at times drunk at work. He initially stated that he was drunk at work on one occasion but later conceded that he would drink at night and on more than one occasion was drunk at work the following day. The Applicant also admitted that on occasions he would drink in the morning before work and that he had multiple hospital admissions due to the suicide risk. The Applicant stated that after his first discharge he was suffering from mental health and could not manage his emotions, so he started drinking again. The Applicant confirmed that he had undergone detox during a lengthy hospital admission but resumed alcohol consumption upon release. The Applicant concedes that there were other occasions when he resumed alcohol consumption (he refers to having 'lapsed') after engaging in rehabilitation programs.
14. The Applicant conceded that he had not been truthful in his evidence to the earlier Tribunal when he failed to disclose the 2023 alcohol consumption, initially stating that he did not believe this to be important but then stating that he did not think it would be beneficial to his case. The Applicant conceded his wrong-doing when various offences were committed including knowingly breaching the AVOs. The Applicant claimed that his present counselling and treatment is more effective than what he had done in the past.
15. Ms Korat told the Tribunal that she believes her husband has changed and is better able to manage his emotions and she refers to the difficult time the Applicant had experienced at the time of offending. She refers to sharing the same values with the Applicant and the Applicant being a good father and a contributor to the community. Ms Korat spoke about the effect of separation on the children and on the plans for the future, including ongoing supports that would be available to the Applicant, such as support from her and the community and professional supports. Ms Korat stated that her husband is aware that if he starts drinking again, he would lose his family "forever" and he would lose his visa but she did not believe he would get to that point with appropriate supports, including supports from the community that was not available previously. Ms Korat stated that if there was any further family violence, she would end the relationship. Ms Korat told the Tribunal she has not considered the future if the Applicant was to leave Australia but she would not be able to travel and visit him frequently. Ms Korat spoke about the stressors that influenced the Applicant in the past stating that many of these no longer exist and she repeatedly reaffirmed her support for the Applicant and willingness to support and guide him in the community.
16. The Tribunal has been provided with a number of professional reports.
17. A statement by Dr Cheng dated 22 November 2019 indicates that the Applicant would be unable to attend his court date as he was an inpatient at a mental health substance use unit in November 2019 and started drinking heavily again upon discharge. He was readmitted to hospital a week later. He developed Wernicke's Encephalopathy and was detained under the Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW).
18. There is before the Tribunal a report by Mr Wills dated 9 September 2020 and a copy of the sentencing report prepared by Aidan Roe in April 2021. The report states that the Applicant has been assessed at a medium risk of reoffending. In January 2021 Mr Dury indicated that the Applicant breached the alcohol abstinence rule in December 2020 when he consumed alcohol after attending the family court. A sentencing assessment report dated 14 August 2020, prepared by Erin McNaughton, also refers to the medium risk of reoffending.
19. There is before the Tribunal a statement by Dr Flowers issued in October 2019 stating that the Applicant was admitted to hospital following a suicide attempt in September 2019 and noting that he "suffers with signs and symptoms of alcohol dependence" but has been sober since admission. It is stated that at the time of the offending the Applicant had been drinking and his angry presentation was interpreted as a threat against the airline. It is stated that the Applicant is willing to learn skills to manage without alcohol. The Applicant provided to the delegate a discharge referral (psychiatry) relating to the Applicant issued in January 2020. It refers to the diagnoses of major depression disorder, acute Wernicke's encephalopathy (resolved) and alcohol use disorder. The report indicates that there has been alcohol use since 2014 and that the Applicant had a previous EtOH withdrawal seizure.
20. The Tribunal has had regard to a report by Dr Andrew Ellis dated 1 May 2020. Dr Ellis refers to the Applicant's self-reported psychiatric history, which included past hospital admissions and prescription of antidepressant medication. It is stated that the Applicant began drinking alcohol at the age of 31 which gradually increased but denied using other illicit substances. Dr Ellis states that the Applicant was in early stages of remission from his mental disorders, including a major depression disorder. He met the criteria for the alcohol use disorder. It is noted that there is no evidence for an antisocial personality disorder.
21. The Tribunal has also been provided with a copy of the report prepared by Dr Christopher Bench dated 14 April 2020. Dr Bench states that the Applicant started drinking alcohol at the age of 18 (both the applicant and Ms Korat denied alcohol use prior to 2013 and Ms Korat stated that the applicant has grown up in a 'dry state') and there was a history of alcoholic blackouts with the longest period of abstinence since 2013 being five months. It is noted that the Applicant denied any history of rehabilitation. It is noted that the Applicant reported being compliant with the anti-depressant medication at the time of offending. The Applicant reported being stressed at the time of offending, increasing his use of alcohol. It is stated that there were no hypomanic or psychotic symptoms elicited around the time of offence. It is stated that the Applicant provided a different account of his conversation with the airport staff. Dr Bench states that it would appear the Applicant had likely suffered an alcoholic blackout at the time of the offence and offers the diagnoses of persistent depressive disorder with intermittent major depressive episodes with anxious distress and severe alcohol use disorder.
22. Dr Bench prepared a further report dated 30 November 2020. Dr Bench refers to the Applicant reporting being sober for 2.5 months and his multiple presentations to ED since April 2020 in the context of depression and suicidal ideation. Dr Bench offered the same diagnoses of severe alcohol use disorder and persistent depressive disorder. Dr Bench states that the Applicant should have ongoing psychiatric supervision and states that treatment of depressive illness would decrease the risk of relapse and decrease the risk of recidivism. Dr Bench states that the Applicant would benefit from a further 12 months of substance abuse counselling to consolidate his skills and gains. Dr Bench states that if the Applicant participates in the treatment plan, this would be the most effective clinical means of decreasing the risk of recidivism. Dr Bench states that the risk of recidivism would greatly decrease if the Applicant continued to abstain from alcohol and comply with his psychiatric treatment but if he was to resume alcohol use, the risk of recidivism would be increased.
23. The Tribunal has also been provided with a statement by David Stojcic, relationship counsellor, who refers to the Applicant being of compulsive nature and lacking emotional intelligence to change, despite his willingness. The Tribunal has been provided with evidence of the Applicant's past study and skills assessment, as well as evidence of his involvement in various programs / services during incarceration, including several sessions with EQUIPS Foundation, Salvation Army Positive Lifestyle program, participation in the Smart Recovery program and multiple sessions at Odyssey House. A statement from Odyssey House dated 12 February 2026 indicates the Applicant had engaged in a non-residential program and had completed multiple sessions and the Tribunal has been provided with copies of several completion certificates issued by Odyssey House. There is before the Tribunal a report by Ms Nawabi from STARTTS confirming his participation in counselling and treatment. The Tribunal has been provided with the Applicant's IHMS and medical records during his time in detention. The Tribunal has had regard to the statement by Ms Medlyn confirming the Applicant's participation in the virtual meetings for the Watershed Day program in relation to alcohol use. It is stated that the Applicant had attended 53 Smart Recovery meetings with positive interaction.
24. The Tribunal has been provided with a report by Mr Causley, psychologist, dated 17 February 2026. The report indicates the Applicant commenced treatment in January 2026 and has demonstrated self-reflection, insight and ownership of past problematic behaviours. Mr Causley suggests it is 'likely' that the Applicant had previously experienced a mood / depressive disorder but he does not currently meet the criteria for a mental health disorder. He experiences significant stress / distress associated with prolonged detention and absence from his family, as well as financial pressure. Mr Causley states that ongoing detention would place the Applicant's coping resources under stress while return to the community would facilitate positive clinical outcomes. Mr Causley has expressed the view that there is a low risk of reoffending, noting factors such as abstinence from alcohol, engagement with professional supports and family, insight and remorse.
25. The Tribunal has had regard to the psychological assessment report by Ms Aiello dated October 2023 which indicates that the Applicant presented with symptoms of depression and anxiety linked to his experience of detention and uncertainty about his future. The Tribunal has considered a report by David Stojcic which refers to several counselling sessions focusing on anger management and coping strategies. Mr Stojcic states that the Applicant had been alcohol free during his time at VIDC and has implemented strategies to remain alcohol free post release including counselling, meditation, family support and willingness to continue therapy. Mr Stojcic provided an updated report on 23 February 2026 in which he states that the Applicant has demonstrated a genuine commitment to personal change, has maintained a complete abstinence from alcohol and has engaged in therapeutic interventions. It is stated that the Applicant and Ms Korat had established robust safety protocols and support systems to prevent domestic violence incidents. Mr Stojcic outlined causal factors leading to the alcohol abuse and domestic violence and the programs the Applicant had engaged in to reduce the risks of reoffending.
26. The Tribunal has considered a report by Dr Scally who characterised the Applicant's offending as contextual and reactive, taking took place in the setting of severe major depressive disorder and alcohol use disorder precipitated by environmental stressors. Dr Scally notes that the offences were committed at the peak of the Applicant's alcohol dependence and intoxication was a factor in the commission of each of the offences. It is noted that none of the Applicant's offending showed indicators of premediated violence or antisocial intent and are contrasted by otherwise pro-social history. Dr Scally refers to the Applicant's ratings revealing lack of criminal tendencies and no antisocial personality features. It is stated that there is no clinically significant psychopathology at preset but a slight propensity to increased outward expression of anger which is not of clinical significance. Dr Scally states that the Applicant is assessed as meeting the criteria for severe alcohol use disorder in sustained remission in a controlled environment, and major depressive disorder in partial remission. Dr Scally noted that the Applicant has now acquired better strategies to cope with the stressors. Dr Scally refers to the risk of general and violent recidivism as being assessed as low, the risk of intimate partner violence was deemed to be low but only in the context of continued abstinence and psychosocial stability. In oral evidence Dr Scally confirmed that 'everyday stressors' such as employment, financial strain and marital difficulties could affect psychosocial stability although noting that the nature of such stressors is also relevant. Dr Scally states in her report that the risk would increase should the Applicant relapse in the context of stress. Dr Scally refers to the significant risk of relapse of the depressive disorder and alcohol use disorder in response to certain factors such as deportation and separation from his wife and children. Dr Scally refers to the various stresses experienced by Ms Korat, stating that it is likely she would experience worsening financial hardship and the children would also likely to suffer from being separated from their father. Dr Scally confirmed that in her conversation with Ms Korat, she confirmed that Ms Korat is under significant stress due to the possibility of separation and the financial stress.
27. In oral evidence Dr Scally outlined the nature of the assessment undertaken. Dr Scally states that MMPI-2-RF test did not reveal any significant mental health issues or signs of psychological distress and that was consistent with the other sources. The STAXI-2 test indicated that the Applicant's results did not show increased levels of anger and better than average ability to manage outward anger. That indicated that the Applicant is not prone to anger-related problems. The SARA test indicated the Applicant presented a low risk for future partner violence, noting that past incidents happened within unique and stressful period of life (uncertainty, financial hardship, work stressors, separation from children, depression and alcohol use). Dr Scally notes that the incidents were linked to the period of alcohol intoxication rather than a pattern of violence. Dr Scally states that the Applicant is now emotionally stable, follows treatment, and has not used alcohol for 3 years and he has acquired better coping strategies. Dr Scally referred to the Applicant being in the 'maintenance phase' of his recovery and the existence of protective factors but also stated that certain stressors may increase the risk of relapse. Dr Scally states that the strongest prognostic factor is not the fact that the Applicant has been in a controlled environment but the strategies that he has now acquired. Dr Scally confirmed that being deported and not being able to see his family would be a significant stressor for the Applicant and may contribute to his depression. Dr Scally acknowledged that there may be other stressors but said that with the family support, he will be in a better position to utilise his skills to manage stress. Dr Scally states that as long as the Applicant maintenance his abstinence, he will be in the low risk category. She notes that the Applicant has the skills and is committed to being abstinent and his lapse in 2023 did not amount to a relapse.
28. The Tribunal has been provided with a psychological report by Patrick Sheehan dated 11 May 2023. Mr Sheehan states that the Applicant reported abstinence from alcohol for over two years while in detention, while other detainees had access to alcohol, but he reported having a drink of wine on the night prior to sentencing while he spent one week in the community. Mr Sheehan states that the Applicant meets the criteria for severe alcohol use disorder, in sustained remission, in a controlled environment. Mr Sheehan states that the Applicant has no history of psychotic illness but had experienced severe alcohol withdrawal. Mr Sheehan states that the Applicant's behaviour since 2018 suggest poor self-control, emotional immaturity, unstable interpersonal behaviours, poor ability to adjust behaviour in response to sanction, pointing towards the presence of personality disorder but reports from those do not support the contention that these are permanent dispositional traits but father features occurring during a period of personal crisis. Mr Sheehan states there are no indicators of antisocial personality, which is a favourable prognostic indicator.
29. It is stated that during the interview the Applicant acknowledged family violence offending and acknowledged that his family would have experienced fear and distress in response to his behaviour. It is stated that the Applicant expressed shame and regret and also acknowledge the seriousness and recklessness of the hoax threat offence.
30. Mr Sheehan has formed the view that there was a low risk of violent offending relative to other male offenders and states that his substance use in the community needs to be extinguished entirely. Mr Sheehan acknowledged the Respondent's concern about abstinence being in a custodial setting but states that the pathway to rehabilitation usually involves relapses and failures and at present, the Applicant has no means of demonstrating his capacity to self-regulate in the community.
31. The Applicant presented a report by Mr Watson-Munro prepared in October 2024. Mr Watson-Munro refers to prior history of suicidal ideation, which contradicts the multipole STARTTS reports which indicate that the Applicant did not have any thoughts or ideation of suicide and no intention to harm himself. Mr Watson Munro indicates that no testing was undertaken at the time but other evidence suggests that at the time of offending the Applicant was suffering from depressive disorder and alcohol use disorder now in partial remission. Mr Watson-Munro states that the Applicant would benefit from ongoing psychological treatment, employment and family support and he refers to various protective factors. With respect to risk of reoffending, Mr Watson-Munro agrees with the assessment by Dr Bench and states that if the Applicant was to relapse into alcohol consumption, this would raise the risk of reoffending.
32. In the recent Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (SFIC) the Respondent notes that the assessment of Mr Watson-Munro indicates that the Applicant's risk of reoffending is linked primarily to the risk of him relapsing into alcohol use and while the Applicant refers to extensive period of sobriety, this is in the context of him being in immigration detention and it remains to be seen whether he can remain sober in the community. The Respondent submits that even if it is accepted that the risk of reoffending is low, the seriousness of the Applicant's offending is such that any risk of it being repeated is unacceptable.
33. The Respondent submits that the Applicant's past attempts of rehabilitation in the community have been unsuccessful, as he has been subject to two detoxification programs and the longest time he had been sober in the community was five months. The Respondent notes that despite being in the restrictive environment, the Applicant had admitted to drinking while in immigration detention after receiving bad news, which he sought to conceal from Mr Sheehan and the previous Tribunal. The Respondent submits that the Applicant does not have complete insight into the seriousness of his alcohol use. The Respondent submits that this consideration weighs heavily against revocation.
34. The Applicant claims, essentially, that he will not reoffend because he has rehabilitated, has acquired skills to manage his stress and his behaviour, will have access to extensive supports and has been able to maintain abstinence from alcohol. The Tribunal finds some of the Applicant's claims unpersuasive, given that at least some of the protective factors to which the Applicant refers - such as the availability of family and community supports and the availability of employment - would have been present at the time of the earlier offending. The Tribunal acknowledges the evidence of Ms Enomar who has offered employment to the Applicant upon release. It is discussed in more detail below but the Tribunal generally accepts that the Applicant will have an opportunity for gainful employment in the community. Given the applicant's employment at the time of his offending, the Tribunal does not consider this to be a strong protective factor.
35. The Tribunal accepts Dr Scally's and other evidence that the Applicant has gained better skills and coping mechanisms to manage future stressors. The Tribunal accepts that the risk of reoffending would be significantly minimised if the Applicant does not consume alcohol, but it is necessary to consider whether the Applicant will (or will be able to) abstain from alcohol if he is released into the community, when he is no longer in the controlled environment of prison and immigration detention. (In that regard, the Tribunal accepts the evidence that alcohol is available in the detention centre but in the Tribunal's view it is unlikely that it is available to the same extent, with the same ease of access and the same consequences for use as is the case in the community. For example, there were repeated references to 'home brew' being available in detention, suggesting there is limited availability of other forms of alcohol that would be easily accessible in the community and a general prohibition on alcohol that is not present in the community).
36. The Tribunal generally accepts the Applicant's evidence that he has engaged in meaningful rehabilitation, attended counselling and other programs and that he may genuinely intend to avoid alcohol in the future. That is, the Applicant may have done everything possible to reduce the risk of reoffending and avoid alcohol use. However, the Tribunal also accepts the Respondent's argument that the past rehabilitative attempts have not been successful and although there is evidence that the Applicant "was not ready" to engage in these programs in the past, his ability to abstain from alcohol and maintain rehabilitation in the future has not been tested. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the Applicant had previously attended multiple programs to manage his alcohol dependence, including during several hospital admissions, but he conceded in the course of the hearing that the longest period of sobriety prior to his detention was five months. The past programs appear to have been ineffective. The Tribunal acknowledges Dr Scally's evidence that the Applicant now has better tools to deal with his mental health and alcohol dependence, but the Tribunal accepts the Respondent's suggestion that the Applicant's capacity to deal with the various stressors has not been tested in the community.
37. The Applicant referred to various factors that contributed to his past alcohol intake, such as employment-related and general stress, family and financial stressors, but in the Tribunal's view, the Applicant is likely to experience some stressors in the community. These may be the same stressors (such as financial hardship) or different ones. It is possible and not implausible that some of these stresses will be significant. For example, the evidence before the Tribunal is that the couple have a substantial credit card debt and although both the Applicant and Ms Korat told the Tribunal that they have plans in place to repay the debt if the Applicant is employed, it is possible that financial hardship may be one of the stressors for the Applicant in the community.
38. The Applicant's evidence is that he has not been able to avoid alcohol intake in the past when in the community. His abstinence has been more effective in detention and as noted above, the Tribunal accepts that alcohol is available in detention. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant has a genuine desire to avoid alcohol intake in the future and that he genuinely believes he has acquired the skills to do so. This is consistent with Dr Scally's evidence. However, despite these claims there is insufficient probative evidence to satisfy the Tribunal that the present programs would necessarily have greater efficacy once the Applicant is in the community, than the programs the Applicant had completed in the past. Given the Applicant's past inability to manage his alcohol intake in the community despite several programs he had engaged in, having regard to his previous relapse after five months of abstinence, and even with the evidence that the Applicant has now gained better coping skills, the Tribunal cannot be completely satisfied that the Applicant will necessarily be more successful in the future.
39. Earlier professional reports identify the risk of assessment as medium and the Tribunal acknowledges that the more recent reports refer to the risk of reoffending being low. That is predicated upon the Applicant's ongoing abstinence. The Tribunal cannot be certain that the Applicant will be able to achieve such abstinence in the long term.
40. The Tribunal has formed the view that there remains a risk of reoffending. The Tribunal accepts that the risk may be low but the Tribunal considers the risk to be real and not remote. Given the serious harm that could be caused if the Applicant was to reoffend, the Tribunal finds that the protection of the Australian community weighs heavily against the revocation.

Whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence

The Government has serious concerns about conferring on non-citizens who engage in family violence the privilege of entering or remaining in Australia. The Government's concerns in this regard are proportionate to the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the non-citizen

1. In his written submission to the first Tribunal the Applicant states that this consideration is not relevant and is neutral. However, the above summary of offending indicates that the Applicant had been convicted of assault in relation to his partner. At the time of the offending, the Applicant was in a domestic relationship with the victim. As the offending involved physical harm in relation to the victim, it would be reasonable to assume that the Applicant's conduct would have caused the victim to be fearful or apprehensive for her safety and well-being. Such offending would constitute family violence.
2. The Respondent submitted that the Applicant's claim that this consideration is not relevant suggests the Applicant does not accept responsibility for his conduct and does not understand the impact of his behaviour. The Respondent also claimed there is limited evidence to indicate the Applicant has made any effort to address the factors which contributed to his conduct. The Respondent submitted that the Applicant had provided evidence of having engaged in an anger management courses but there is no evidence that any specific family violence rehabilitation has been undertaken although the Applicant now claims he accepts responsibility for his conduct and understand its impact on his family.
3. The Applicant claims in a submission to the earlier Tribunal that the issue of the family violence was not raised by the Minister in the Notice of Cancellation however, the Tribunal is mindful that, unlike cancellations under s.109 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), here the considerations are not limited to the bases identified in a NOICC. Further, the cancellation is mandatory if the Applicant had been convicted of a certain offence and does not pass the character test. That process is not affected by any deficiency in the cancellation notice, even if any such deficiency was established. The Tribunal is further satisfied that the Applicant has been given a genuine opportunity to deal with the issue.
4. The Applicant appears to have abandoned these earlier concerns and he now concedes that he had committed family violence offending.
5. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant did commit family violence offending. In oral evidence Ms Korat told the Tribunal that more than six years passed since the family violence offending and she has witnessed a 'huge change' in her husband, engagement in supports and other sessions. She referred to her support for the husband and having shared values. The Tribunal is prepared to accept that Ms Korat genuinely believes the Applicant will not reoffend. The Tribunal also accepts that the Applicant had completed some programs and acknowledges his clams that he is rehabilitated. Dr Scally stated in her evidence that the Applicant's offending occurred due to intoxication and not inherent criminality and Dr Scally refers to the low risk of family violence reoffending. The Respondent accepts the applicant had achieved some rehabilitation.
6. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant had completed some programs and acknowledges that Ms Korat strongly supports the revocation of the visa and her evidence that they have reconciled and plan to live together. However, the Tribunal also acknowledges the adverse effect of the violence on Ms Korat (she repeatedly told the Tribunal it is unacceptable and, if repeated, would result in the breakup of the relationship) and, if the offence is to be repeated, the likely effect on the children.
7. The Tribunal has found that the Applicant had committed family violence offending. In Patterson[3] the Tribunal held (at [60] per Senior Member Tavoularis):

Legal authority also militates strongly against violence against women, especially in a domestic context. This Tribunal, in the matter of Mendoza and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] AATA 686 has said that the Australian community has "zero tolerance" for violent offending against women and for domestic violence offending against anyone, and that such conduct is to be regarded as "unacceptable at any time - in any place - in any circumstances." Similarly, this Tribunal has found that domestic violence is "fundamentally inconsistent with the standard of behaviour expected by the Australian community".

1. The Tribunal has formed the view that this consideration should be given heavy weight against the revocation.

The strength, nature, and duration of ties to Australia

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.

1. 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
   • (A) 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.
   • (B) The strength, duration and nature of any family or social links with Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and / or people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia.
2. The Applicant has been living in Australia since 2009 although he did not acquire Australian permanent residence until about ten years later. The Applicant did not begin offending soon after arriving in Australia.
3. The Applicant's immediate family, including his partner and children, reside in Australia and are Australian citizens. The Applicant provided to the Tribunal a number of family and social photographs. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant has been residing in Australia for a lengthy period and that he has strong family and social links in this country.
4. Ms Korat in her statement to the delegate dated 20 April 2021 referred to the Applicant's voluntary activities and there is also a statement from a Salvation Army worker. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant had engaged in some voluntary and community activities prior to his detention. Ms Korat stated in her submission to the earlier Tribunal that if the Applicant's visa remained cancelled and if he was to return to India, she may decide to accompany him to India as she considers him to be a devoted husband and a caring father. Ms Korat stated that she is accustomed to a western lifestyle and it would be hard for her to re-settle in India and her children will miss the opportunities that they have in Australia. In her statement to the earlier Tribunal Ms Korat stated that if she were to live in India, this would cause hardship to her and the children who would have no opportunities there. Ms Korat stated that she would not travel to India with the Applicant. The evidence to the present Tribunal, from the Applicant and Ms Korat, is that the family would not relocate to India if the Applicant's visa remains cancelled, leading to separation of the Applicant from his partner and children. Ms Korat also told the Tribunal that she would not have the financial means to visit her husband in India frequently.
5. Ms Korat provided a statement to the present Tribunal dated 27 February 2026 in which she outlines her ongoing relationship with the Applicant and the effect of separation on her and the children, including the difficulties that the children have experience and the financial hardship that she has experienced. Ms Korat states that alcohol contributed to the Applicant's past behaviour and she is confident that her husband will now stay sober. Ms Korat outlines the plans for the future if the Applicant is to be released from detention. In oral evidence Ms Korat stated that the Applicant' detention has been punishing on the entire family and she referred to the impact on the younger child of not having a father. Ms Korat also spoke about the plans for the future and the support she and the community will provide to the Applicant. Ms Korat told the Tribunal that the Applicant could work and support the family financially, and she could take up a full-time job with higher pay if the Applicant is released.
6. The Tribunal has been provided with evidence of the Applicant's communication with his family during detention and family photographs, as well as school reports for the Applicant's child. The Applicant's two children have each prepared a statement to the present Tribunal and the Tribunal has had regard to those. The Applicant's daughter Miss Korat gave oral evidence to the Tribunal and spoke about her close connection with her father and the hardship due to his absence. Miss Korat spoke about emotional and financial burden if the Applicant was not in Australia.
7. The Tribunal accepts that if the Applicant's visa is cancelled, this is likely to lead to the Applicant being separated from his partner and children as the present evidence is that they would remain in Australia. The Tribunal accepts this may have an adverse impact on the Applicant's spouse and children.
8. Ms Enomar also told the Tribunal that she would be affected if the Applicant was to leave Australia. However, when asked how that would be the case, Ms Enomar said that she would be sad. The Tribunal is not convinced that there would be any meaningful impact on Ms Enomar if the cancellation is not revoked.
9. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant has formed ties in Australia. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant's family would be significantly impacted by the non-revocation. The Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs heavily in favour of the revocation.

The best interests of minor child 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. Paragraph 8.4(4) sets out the factors that must be considered, where relevant, in assessing the best interests of the child:

a) the nature and duration of the relationship between the child and the non-citizen.

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. There is before the Tribunal a copy of an application for consent orders in relation to parenting responsibilities and a copy of the court issued Terms of Settlement. In his written statement to the earlier Tribunal the Applicant stated that he is expected to play a leading role in the family and provide guidance to the children and it would be more difficult for him to fulfil that role outside of Australia. The Applicant refers to his role in raising the children and their ongoing contact while he has been detained. The Applicant states that his children will be adversely affected by his permanent absence.
2. The Respondent submits that there is little evidence of the Applicant's relationship with the children and the evidence suggests the Applicant had spent significant time away from the children, in particular his son as they have lived in the same household for about two years after the son's birth and before the child travelled to India and a brief period before the Applicant left the family home in Australia. Ms Korat in oral evidence indicated that despite the short period of living in the same household, the children share a close relationship with their father and have been affected by the separation. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant has maintained contact with his children while in detention and that there is a close relationship between them despite the Applicant having lived for a relatively short period of time in the same household as his son.
3. The Tribunal is mindful that the Applicant's elder daughter has now turned 18 and is no longer a minor. The younger child continues to be a minor. He provided a statement to the Tribunal in February 2026 outlining the close relationship he has with his father and the hardship of not having his father present in his daily life. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant has played a parental role in relation to his two children and is likely to play such a role in the future. There does not appear to be anyone else playing a paternal role.
4. The Tribunal finds that it is in the best interests of the Applicant's minor child that he maintains a close and meaningful relationship with his father. In the Tribunal's view, that is only the case if the child does not experience, and is not exposed to, any family violence perpetrated by the Applicant. The Tribunal does not accept the Respondent's submission that the weight afforded to this consideration should be limited because the Applicant had spent relatively little time with the son in the past because there is a potential for him to retain a close parental role in the future if he remain in Australia and such role would be severely limited if the Applicant is not in Australia.
5. The Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs heavily 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.

1. 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.
2. 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.

1. Paragraph 8.5(4) is consistent with the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs,[4] 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.
2. 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.
3. In Ismail[5] the High Court said (regarding the same primary consideration as it appeared at paragraph 8.4 in the former Direction 90):

... para 8.4 does not stipulate that, in assessing what weight is to be given to the expectations of the Australian community, the decision maker must attribute to that hypothesised community knowledge of the personal circumstances of the Applicant for the visa as known to the delegate. To the contrary, para 8.4(4) stipulates that the decision maker is to proceed on the basis of the Australian Government's views as set out in para 8.4 "without independently assessing the community's expectations in the particular case".

Paragraph 8.4(4) is to be understood as directing the decision maker not to attempt to infer what the expectations of the Australian community would be "in the particular case" (that is, with the knowledge of the delegate about the Applicant's personal circumstances), but to proceed on the basis that the views of the Australian Government set out in para 8.4(1)- (3) are the relevant norm described as the expectations of the Australian community...

1. The Applicant had committed a serious offence by making a threat against an airline. He also committed family violence offending in relation to his partner and a driving offence.
2. The Applicant concedes that this consideration will weigh against him but submits it should be given limited weight in circumstances where he is rehabilitated and has spent several years in detention and prior to that, a lengthy period in Australia. The Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs against the revocation and, having regard to the seriousness of the offences, the Tribunal places significant weight on this consideration.

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

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 the subject of a protection finding. The Applicant does not claim, and there is no evidence before the Tribunal to indicate that, Australia's non-refoulement obligations are engaged in this case.
2. If the Applicant's visa remains cancelled, the Applicant would remain in detention as an unlawful non-citizen and will be removed from Australia. There is no suggestion the Applicant would be subject to indefinite detention.
3. The cancellation of the visa means that the Applicant may not be able to apply for another Australian visa onshore (subject to a very limited exception) and will be subject to the special return criteria in relation to any future visa applications. The Applicant would have very limited options, if any, of being reunited with his family in Australia.
4. The Respondent submits that this consideration should be given neutral weight (by reference to Stoneley) while the Applicant submits, by reference to Singh,[6] that it should weigh in favour of the Applicant. It is not in dispute that the Tribunal is able to consider the Applicant's particular circumstances in determining the weight to be given to this consideration. In this case, noting the presence of the Applicant's immediate family in Australia, the length of his residence here and the consequence of permanent exclusion if the cancellation is not revoked, the Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs somewhat in favour of 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:
   1. the non-citizen's age and health;
   2. whether there are any substantial language or cultural barriers; and
   3. any social, medical and/or economic support available to that non-citizen in that country.
2. The Applicant is 45 years of age. The various reports indicate that he has been diagnosed with depression and alcohol use disorder (in remission).
3. The Applicant told the Tribunal that he has no supports in India as his brothers have their own families, his parents are retired and his father is in poor health. The Applicant states that he would have no place to live. The Applicant confirmed in oral evidence that his brother may try to him get a job but he states he has not worked in that field for many years. The Applicant claims that he does not wish to divorce and if he is to return to India he will maintain a long distance relationship with his family and his children may be able to visit from time to time. The Applicant states that it would be a stressful situation for him and may cause him depression.
   1. The Respondent notes that there is no evidence the Applicant will not be able to access relevant healthcare and supports in his home country and the Tribunal acknowledges that the Applicant presented no evidence to support this claim that he will not be able to access mental health and other support in India. As the Applicant has lived in India until 2009, the Tribunal does not consider that there would be any substantial language or cultural barriers and the Applicant has not identified such barriers.
4. In his written submission to the first Tribunal the Applicant stated that there is no evidence of impediment if he is removed from Australia. The Applicant's evidence to the present Tribunal is that his removal from Australia, which would necessitate permanent separation from his family in Australia, would jeopardise his mental health and that is consistent with the evidence of Dr Scally. The Tribunal accepts Dr Scally's professional views.
   1. Given the length of his residence in Australia, the Tribunal accepts that the Applicant may have little available to him in India, such as own accommodation and employment. The Applicant's evidence is that his family cannot support him but will try to help. The Tribunal acknowledges that the Applicant is likely to experience some hardship, at least in the short term, upon returning to India. In the absence of probative supporting evidence, the Tribunal does not accept the Applicant will not be able to access healthcare and other supports that are generally available in his home country. Nevertheless, the Tribunal accepts Dr Scally's evidence that separation from his family are likely to affect the Applicant's mental health. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant will experience considerable impediment if removed. The Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs strongly in favour of the revocation.

1. In his submission to the delegate the Applicant referred to his qualifications as a commercial cook stating that these are in shortage in Australia and that he could be of benefit to the country. The Applicant provided to the Tribunal evidence that he has been offered employed as a chef in a café. Ms Enomar gave oral evidence concerning her business and the employment opportunity for the Applicant. The Tribunal found that evidence to be quite vague, as Ms Enomar was unable to clearly describe in detail the financial position of the business and its capacity to pay the applicant's salary, the level of salary she was willing to offer to the Applicant (other than to state it would be the minimal salary), the nature of his duties or the proposed hours of employment. There is no evidence before the Tribunal about any efforts Ms Enomar may have made to find another employee if she needs one and, indeed, there is no probative evidence - other than Ms Enomar's claim to indicate that she genuinely needs another employee. Ms Enomar's evidence suggests that she has made a job offer partly because the Applicant is a friend and not to meet the business needs.
2. Ms Enomar told the Tribunal in oral evidence that she previously worked with the Applicant, considered him to be a good worker with a good work ethic and stated that she would make an opportunity for the Applicant to work in the business as a cook and doing general jobs. As noted above, the Tribunal has found Ms Enomar's evidence unsatisfactory. Even if the Tribunal were to accept that Ms Enomar has a genuine work opportunity for the Applicant, there is no evidence before the Tribunal to indicate that a decision not to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant's visa would affect the operation of the business. As noted above, there is no evidence to indicate that Ms Enomar sought another employee or that there was a genuine employment need. The Tribunal does not accept the rather vague and unparticularised evidence that if the Applicant does not take up the position in Ms Enomar's business, the business would be adversely affected.
3. There is no evidence that the non-revocation would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project or of an important service in Australia.
4. The Tribunal has determined that this consideration should be given neutral weight.

1. In his SFIC prepared for the first Tribunal the Applicant refers to the delay in making the decision in his case while he was in detention. The Tribunal cannot comment on the reasons for the delay, nor offer any redress to the Applicant. The Applicant also states that the decision was made shortly before the new Direction, which was more beneficial, came into effect and the decision was notified a month later. Again, the Tribunal can neither comment, nor offer any redress in relation to these issues.

1. The Tribunal has found that the Applicant had been convicted of an offence for which he was sentenced to more than 12 months imprisonment and he does not pass a character test. The Tribunal has considered if there is another reason why the decision to cancel his visa should be revoked.
2. The Tribunal found the Applicant's offending to have been serious. The hoax threat had the potential of having a very serious consequence of causing fear and anxiety for the passengers on board, as well as considerable financial losses to the passenger and airlines. The family violence offending involved violence against the Applicant's partner and the driving offence, while not significant, nevertheless, had the potential of harm to others.
3. The Tribunal has found that any assessment of risk of future reoffending is dependant on the Applicant not engaging in the consumption of alcohol. If the Applicant were to resume alcohol use, the Tribunal finds, consistently with the professional views expressed in various reports that the risk of reoffending would increase. While the Tribunal accepts that the Applicant had engaged in a wide range of rehabilitative programs, is considered to have better coping mechanisms and that he may have a genuine intention to avoid future alcohol use, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that a meaningful rehabilitation has been achieved in circumstances where past rehabilitative efforts have not been successful and did not achieve abstinence in the community and also where the Applicant's resolve not to consume alcohol and his coping abilities have not been tested outside of the controlled environment of detention. The Tribunal has found that there is a low risk but a real and not a remote risk of the Applicant reoffending. The Tribunal finds that the protection of the Australian community weighs against the revocation and the Tribunal gives it significant weight.
4. The Applicant had committed family violence offending against his partner. The Applicant claims that his wife has forgiven him and Ms Korat has been very supportive of the Applicant in her evidence. The Tribunal acknowledges that the Applicant had achieved some rehabilitation since the offending. This does not detract from the fact that family violence is considered as an unacceptable form of behaviour, as Ms Korat herself acknowledged. The Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs heavily against the revocation. The Tribunal also determined that the community expectations weigh against the revocation and gives this consideration considerable weight.
5. The Tribunal has found the best interests of the Applicant's minor child would be best served if the cancellation is revoked (provided there is no further family violence) and the Tribunal gives this considerable weight in favour of the revocation. The Tribunal has found that the Applicant will experience potentially significant detriment if removed and also that there would be an adverse impact on the Applicant's family (wife and children) due to the separation if the Applicant is removed from Australia. The Tribunal gives these factors strong weight in favour of the revocation. The Tribunal gives some weight in favour of the revocation to the legal consequence of removal in that the Applicant will not be able to seek another visa in Australia and is likely to be permanently separated from his family. The business interests are neutral.
6. Having carefully considered all the circumstances, the Tribunal has decided to give greatest weight to the considerations of protection of the Australian community, the expectations of the community and the fact that the Applicant had committed family violence. The Tribunal acknowledges 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. The Applicant submits that the circumstances of this case negate that proposition, primarily because of the procedural history of this case, the length of time he has spent in detention and the rehabilitation achieved in that period. Despite these factors, for the reasons set out above, the Tribunal has decided to give significant weight to the consideration of the protection of the community.
7. In the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal has decided that those considerations that weigh against the revocation outweigh those considerations that weigh in favour of the revocation.
8. The Tribunal has decided that the decision under review should be affirmed.

1. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

Mr C. Honnery, instructed by Milojkovic Visa and Migration Legal Services

[1] Stoneley v MIMA [2025] FCA 143.

[2] Patterson and Minister for Home affairs [2019] AATA 5175.

[3] Patterson and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration) [2019] AATA 5175.

[4] [2019] FCAFC 185.

[5] Ismail v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 2 at [51]- [52].

[6] Singh v MICMSMA [2024] FCA 1273.