98. On 13 August 2024, the Applicant was convicted of further violent offending. On 1 December 2023, the Applicant became aggressive towards his neighbour, placed him in a headlock and pressed him to the ground, breaking his tooth in the process. He then entered his neighbour's residence, picked up an empty bottle and struck him on the side of body (HB G7/62).
99. On 13 August 2024, the Applicant was convicted in Burwood Local Court of Assault occasioning actual bodily harm T2 and Remain in building/land w/I commit indictable offence.
100. It was put to the Applicant by the Respondent at the Tribunal Hearing that despite all his recent offending, he assaulted his neighbour in December 2023. He pleaded guilty to this offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and remaining in a building with intent to commit an offence.
101. He agreed that he and his neighbour were known to each other and lived in the same street and there was a previous occasion when his neighbour bought drugs and had not paid for them. The Applicant lent his neighbour money and when payday came, his neighbour did not repay him. The Applicant knew the money he was giving him was to buy drugs.
102. The sentencing remarks made by the Court are that on 1 December 2023 he borrowed a jet lighter from his neighbour and did not return it when the neighbour came asking for it a few hours later. The Applicant became aggressive, placing him in a headlock and pressed him to the ground, where the neighbour broke one tooth and cracked another. The Applicant stated that his neighbour owed him money, so the Applicant asked him for the lighter and when he came back to get it, he refused and his neighbour accused him of tricking him.
103. The Applicant stated that he did not want to use physical violence against his neighbour, he just wanted his money back. He reacted this way because he was on drugs and had not slept for days. He stated it was not a full headlock. It was put to him that it caused breakage of his neighbour's tooth and a crack in another one. The Applicant said the neighbour had been a drug user for many years and had poor teeth, but it was noted that the sentencing judge had not accepted that argument.
104. He pleaded guilty because he had put him in a headlock to grab his telephone. He does not accept that he caused actual bodily harm in the way that it was portrayed. He told the Tribunal that he accepted a plea of guilty because his lawyer had told him that he would have to wait about two years for a trial and he had already admitted that he grabbed him, so he agreed to plead guilty as his best option. His lawyer told him it was a good deal, and he just wanted to get it over and done with.
105. As a result of his offending, he received a further sentence of two years reduced to 22 months on appeal and was taken back into prison. He stopped using because he was in prison and had been removed from the situation, he stated that that is not the only way he could have stopped using drugs. He stated that being detained made him realise he should stop using drugs.
106. It was put to him that the prison records show (HB G26(a)/173) he engaged in six remand addiction sessions in January 2024. He stated those sessions involved a group of inmates sharing their experiences with drug use. He did six sessions and then ended up moving to a different unit which offered him employment opportunities but did not offer addiction programs. He wanted to be employed to make money and also to learn some job skills. He told the Tribunal that during the sessions he learnt drug use can get out of control, but if you are willing to change and be honest about it, you can change. He did not undertake this course for the purpose of sentencing; he really wanted to give up the drugs or learn how to manage them. He was released in November 2024 and taken into immigration detention.
107. His visa was cancelled in September 2024 (second visa cancellation), which he received notice of when he was in gaol. He arranged for some letters to be sent to the Department in response to his visa cancellation and there are three letters before the Tribunal which were written on the same day (HB G26(d)/182-190). Only one person helped him with those letters, but other people helped with writing them out.
108. In one of those letters, the Respondent put it to him that he claimed that his issues with substance abuse arose every time he had to deal with immigration detention. He stated there was an Indian boy that helped him with the letter, and he may have included that in the letter. He told the Tribunal that substance abuse issues arise every time he deals with immigration detention because he has to keep explaining his drug use and the fact that he is addicted to drugs.
109. In one of the letters, he stated that everyone makes mistakes, and he has stopped using drugs and drinking alcohol. He stated that he is conscious that he must be a better example for his children. He stated he was not on drugs in prison but everyone in detention is using drugs, but he has avoided using drugs since he has been in detention. He stated that both his roommate and everyone else are using drugs.

110. With respect to other conduct, the Respondent submitted that on 2 November 2023, the NSW Police criminal records (COPS) indicate that the Applicant was involved in an incident of domestic violence (HB TB7(a)/215). The police referred to his friend A as his partner, but he told the Tribunal she was a friend and housemate only.
111. On 2 November 2023, he demanded A's, cigarettes. When she refused, he chased her into the street, grabbed her by the shirt and necklace and brought her to the ground, causing cuts to her arm where she landed. When interviewed by police, he insisted he "never hit" the victim but admitted he was under the influence of methamphetamines. .
112. At the Tribunal Hearing, it was put to the Applicant that on 2 November 2023 he and A were in an argument in relation to some online banking issues. She was on the phone with the bank and he had asked her for the cigarettes she had in her possession. He grabbed her handbag to find the cigarettes and she ran out of the unit because she did not want to give them to him. He followed her and grabbed her by the shirt and necklace causing the necklace to come open and her shirt to rip. She fell on the ground and had multiple cuts to her arm. He took the cigarettes before he walked away.
113. The Applicant gave a different account of events. He stated that she accused him of stealing from her bank account and he pointed out she was not paying any rent. He asked her for some cigarettes, and she refused and ran down the street. He ran after her and she said she was calling the police, and he thought she was going to call them about the money. He grabbed her and she pulled away from him when he tried to get the cigarettes, and she went to the ground and her shirt ripped but he did not push her. She ran away because they were both on drugs and she was on a good behaviour bond. He received an apprehended violence order but when he came back to his unit, she was still staying there and she did not leave. He stated she was not his girlfriend. She later withdrew her complaint, and he was not dealt by the courts.
114. The Applicant is also recorded to have recently attacked other detainees in detention, including assaulting a detainee with an iron bar, and chasing another with a plastic chair (in December 2024 and January 2025) (HB G31/238, 244).
115. The Tribunal repeated its warning on self-incrimination.
116. The Applicant gave evidence that he has not used drugs while he has been in detention for the last eight months. Despite this, it was put to the Applicant that he has continued to engage in violent conduct in detention. He disagreed with this contention. It was put to him that records held by the detention centre (HB G31/244) showed that an incident occurred on 19 December 2024 where he was found standing over another detainee holding a weapon. The other detainee was observed to be bleeding from the facial area. He agreed that one detention officer came into the room and saw him standing over another detainee with a weapon and that the other detainee had to be taken to hospital by ambulance because of injuries he sustained.
117. The Applicant wished to put his version of events which essentially were that he had a dispute with another detainee over cigarettes, but he did not initiate the dispute; he was trying to defend himself.
118. There was another incident in 2024 (HB G31/245) where it was alleged that the Applicant and another detainee approached one another and had a dispute which escalated into a physical fight. He told the officers that the other detainee was pestering him for cigarette filters. They argued and the other person came towards him and punched him. The manager told both the Applicant and the other detainee that they may not achieve 10 incentive activity points and it may result in a behavioural management plan. He told the manager he did not start the fight.
119. The third incident is recorded as the Applicant throwing a sign and chasing another detainee with a chair. The Applicant stated that a dispute arose between roommates regarding changing rooms and the purchase of a mobile telephone. One of the detainees picked up the sign and threw it so the Applicant picked it up. Picking up the chair was the only option to stop himself getting hit by the sign. He denied that he chased the other detainee with the chair and that he only walked towards him. He stated that he did not intend to be violent he just wanted the other detainee to leave the room he was in. He stated the detention officers did not do anything.
120. Having considered the factors in Paragraph 8.1.1 the Tribunal considers that the Applicant's criminal offending is very serious. The Applicant has an extensive history of criminal convictions from September 2011 to 13 August 2024.
121. He has committed crimes of violence against women, that is, against his brother's partner and acts of family violence against his former partner. Paragraph 8.1.1 (a)(ii) and (iii) provides that these types of crimes are regarded as very serious.
122. He has also committed crimes against police and innocent members of the community. The Tribunal has considered the sentencing remarks in those matters where the offences involved members of the public unknown to the Applicant. It notes that the courts have variously remarked on; the victim being "scared and fearful for his safety", as well as conduct described as "wild and frightening behaviour" and "brash, thoughtless and frightening".
123. The Applicant has been sentenced to several periods of imprisonment. The Tribunal considers that sentences involving terms of imprisonment are the last resort in the sentencing hierarchy.[4] Where a Court has sentenced an offender to a term of custodial imprisonment, this is a reflection of the objective seriousness of the offences involved.
124. The Tribunal finds, on the material before it, that the Applicant has breached conditional liberty orders imposed by the courts which aggravates the seriousness of his offending.
125. The Respondent submitted and the Tribunal accepts that the Applicant continued to offend despite being warned about the consequences of future offending. The Tribunal finds the Applicant re-offended after twice being formally warned about the consequences of further offending in 2012 and 2014 and having his visa first cancelled in 2023.
126. The evidence before the Tribunal is that in May 2012 the Applicant was in prison after he had been sentenced for the incident with his brother's partner and the robbery.
127. In May 2012, the Minister sent him a notice of a decision not to cancel his visa and in June 2012 the Applicant signed an acknowledgment he had received the notice and understood he could be considered for cancellation if any further information came to the attention of the Department.
128. At the Tribunal Hearing, the Applicant agreed he had received that notice and acknowledged it but did not think the Minister would send him back to Sudan after accepting him and he did not take it seriously at the time. It was put to him that he understood that criminal offending might have consequences for his visa situation. He stated that he had been in Australia for five years and did not understand how they could cancel his visa.
129. In July 2014, the Applicant was again formally warned by the Department that a decision had been made not to cancel his visa. At the time he was in Junee Correctional Centre from 6 June 2014 for breach of his parole; he stayed there for about six weeks.
130. The notice not to cancel his visa stated that if he wished to stay in Australia and maintain a relationship with his child, he needed to address his personal issues. It also stated that his past history and arrival as a refugee did not excuse his persistent violent behaviour. If he offended again, cancellation was a very real prospect. He agreed at the Tribunal hearing that he had been notified that if further matters came to the attention of the Department, he would be considered for cancellation again.
131. He stated that he thought the Department were not serious because they had not sent him back in 2012. He agreed that at the time he had taken it too lightly. When he spoke with a lawyer, she advised him that the Department was serious, and he responded by questioning how they could cancel his visa when he had not committed a crime; he had just breached his parole. He said that he was angry when he got this letter, but the lawyer helped him through it. He signed the acknowledgment but did not understand the impact of it.
132. The Respondent's Counsel put it to him that he had a lawyer explain the letters in 2012 and 2014 and he had signed the acknowledgments. He agreed but felt it was unfair when he did not commit a crime and had just gone to gaol for six weeks. He was upset that they sent him the second letter a long time after he was convicted in 2013. At the Tribunal hearing, he spent some time trying to explain why he was angry with the Department for sending the letter but agreed that he understood he had been given another chance. He thinks that at the time he was still affected by his alcohol addiction.
133. The evidence before the Tribunal is that in 2023 the Applicant's visa was cancelled and his request for revocation was refused. The AAT revoked the mandatory cancellation of his visa (first visa cancellation) (HB G27/194). The Tribunal considers that the process which the Applicant went through to have his visa revoked was lengthy and that he appeared before the AAT to give evidence. The Tribunal considers the cancellation and the process the Applicant went through before his visa cancellation was revoked should have been a compelling warning that if he engaged in further offending, his visa could be cancelled.
134. Despite the warnings given to the Applicant and the cancellation of his visa, the Applicant offended again on 1 December 2023 some four months after his visa cancellation was revoked by the AAT.
135. The Tribunal also considers that the frequency of the Applicant's offending from 2010 to 2013 and then from 2017 to 2024 and the cumulative effect of his offending leads the Tribunal to conclude that his offending is very serious.
136. The Tribunal has also considered other conduct. This includes the Applicant's actions in 2023 in which he was alleged to have chased his flatmate outside and grabbed her bag and pulled her which resulted in falling to the ground and her necklace being broken and shirt ripped. She also sustained some cuts to her arm when she fell.
137. The Applicant gave evidence that with respect to the incident with his housemate, he asked for his housekey, and she pulled away from him and he realises he should not have touched her but they were both using drugs, she had the housekey and she kept his cigarettes. He stated she was staying in his house, and she was not paying anything but refused to share her cigarettes with him. He did grab her, but he did not push her and she pulled herself away and her shirt ripped and that is when the police were called. He was not intending to be violent he just grabbed her because it was the only way to get the keys. He realises now that he should not look to excuse his behaviour.
138. The Applicant has attempted to minimise his behaviour in relation to this incident as well as blaming it on the influence of his drug use. He also noted that she continued to live as his flatmate after the incident. The evidence indicates his flatmate withdrew the complaint against him and he was not convicted of any offence in relation to this incident. However, he did admit at the Tribunal hearing that he chased her, grabbed her bag to get cigarettes and that she fell to the ground which resulted in damage to her clothes and some cuts to her arms. It appears his conduct related to her refusal to provide him with cigarettes and the Tribunal considers that his response was disproportionate and indicative of his often-violent response to minor provocations.
139. The Respondent made submissions about conduct while in the detention centre in December 2024 and January 2025. The Applicant agreed that he had been involved in disputes with other detainees but stated that any physical actions by him were taken in self-defence. The Tribunal has considered the written records of the incidents and the Applicant's evidence and finds that the Applicant has been involved in a number of disputes with other detainees where violence or threatening behaviour has taken place. The evidence of the nature of this conduct is limited and the Tribunal notes that the conduct did not result in criminal charges being made against the Applicant or other detainees. However, the Tribunal considers the evidence demonstrates that the Applicant reacts to small frustrations and provocations with violent reactions, and this is consistent with past behaviour which has underpinned most of his criminal offending.
140. Taking account of the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's offending and other conduct the Tribunal considers the Applicant's offending and other conduct is very serious.

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

1. Paragraph 8.1.2(1) provides that the Australian community's tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. The decision-maker must have regard, cumulatively, to (a) the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct; and (b) the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account available information and evidence on the risk of the Applicant re-offending along with evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision.
2. The Respondent submits that the Applicant's criminal history is such that a broad range of harm may befall members of the Australian community if he were to reoffend. If the Applicant were to reoffend by committing further violent offences, the nature of the harm that may result includes physical harm, psychological harm to the victims and witnesses, and broader financial and other consequences for the justice and health systems. If the Applicant were to reoffend by committing further property and dishonesty related offences, the harm that would flow from that offending is likely to be financial harm to the Australian community, both individuals and businesses.
3. The Respondent submits, and the Tribunal accepts, that the Applicant is a recidivist violent offender and that he continues to pose a risk of harm to the Australian community.
4. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates, and the Tribunal finds, that the nature of the harm to individuals or members of the community would be substantial should the Applicant go on to commit violent offences. It finds there is a risk he would engage in violence and would be a risk to any future partners, to associates and friends, to unrelated members of the community and to police and other law enforcement officers. The evidence indicates that the Applicant's offending is often, but not always, linked to his drug and alcohol use. It is fair to say, and the Applicant admits, that his drug and alcohol abuse has been largely unchecked since 2010. In the report provided by Dr McSwiggan in relation to the Applicant's sentencing in 2022 (HB G25/169) she refers to the Applicant having a severe drug and alcohol abuse disorder. The Tribunal accepts there have been periods of abstention from alcohol but rather than total abstention from substances it appears that the Applicant switched his alcohol use for the use of cannabis or methamphetamine.
5. The Tribunal is aware that some periods of abstention also have coincided with terms of imprisonment, but when the Applicant has been released from gaol or detention the evidence indicates he has invariably resumed his substance abuse. He admitted that in the past he has been controlled by his drug addiction. His evidence is that following the first cancellation decision and his subsequent release from detention he recommenced the regular use of methamphetamines and appears to have been associated with a milieu of persons in or around Bass Hill who also consumed methamphetamines. He explained that most of his Centrelink benefits were used to buy methamphetamines.
6. In discussing the nature of his previous offences, the Applicant often pointed out that he did not plan to commit offences and the Tribunal accepts that evidence. However, it is clear that he has acted impulsively and has been unable to control his emotions and his anger. His reaction to minor problems or issues is generally disproportionate to the issue itself. The evidence indicates he has reacted violently in situations when he perceived a racist taunt, a hurtful comment by his partner, a refusal by his partner to let him see his children late at night or when they were asleep, when he had a disagreement over cigarettes, rooms, phones or other minor issues.
7. Despite the Applicant's assertion that he will not recommence his use of drugs, the Tribunal considers that it is highly likely that if the Applicant was released, he would recommence his drug use and would respond to problems and frustrations with violent behaviour. It was put to him if he was released it was inevitable he would go back to using drugs and alcohol and to violent offending. He disagreed and stated that if he was attacked, he would defend himself but would not initiate any violence. He stated that when he had the dispute with his neighbour, he could have punched him but did not. However, the evidence indicates that the Applicant has generally responded with violence to minor issues and problems and the Tribunal does not accept that the Applicant's conduct has changed or will change in any way which might suggest he would not respond in the way he has in the past.
8. The Applicant acknowledged that he had problems with alcohol, drugs and violence but stated he wanted to "turn the corner". It was put to him that in the last 15 years he had been given every opportunity to turn the corner but had made little attempt to go through any rehabilitation options. The Applicant stated he had been trying but had nothing to show for it. He stated he had done some courses, and it was put to him that they had not assisted in his drug use or violence. He stated that he had always thought that counselling would not help him.
9. The Respondent submits that the courts have dealt leniently with the Applicant in the past and he has been given many opportunities for rehabilitation.
10. In considering his criminal history and sentencing remarks made by courts, the Tribunal considers that the courts have been lenient with the Applicant and have clearly taken account of his youth, his background in Sudan and Kenya, his lack of literacy and his drug and alcohol addictions. It is understandable that the courts have sought to give the Applicant every opportunity to address his personal and substance abuse issues, but the evidence also suggests that the Applicant has not taken up various options for rehabilitation. The evidence indicates that he has repeatedly failed to engage with Community Corrections officers and parole officers. He has failed to follow directions for course attendance as provided in his various conditional liberty orders. In 2021 he was called up to the District Court for a breach of his earlier suspended sentence as he failed to follow directions and engage with drug and alcohol and domestic violence courses and programs.
11. In the presentence psychological report prepared by Dr McSwiggan the Applicant told her that he believed inpatient drug rehabilitation would be desirable for 6 to 12 months (HB G25/170). However, he has not taken any steps to obtain such assistance.
12. The report also noted that the Applicant did not follow up on brain injury rehabilitation services in Sydney after his discharge due to his return to Wagga Wagga. It also noted that the Applicant failed to engage with a recommended Drug and Alcohol program in 2020.
13. In his oral evidence, the Applicant stated that he had attended a number of sessions in the Remand Addiction Program in January 2024 (HB G26(a)/173) while in prison but the Tribunal notes that he only attended six sessions out of a total of 20 sessions and that he chose to transfer to another unit which did not provide this program. The other unit provided employment where he could earn money and develop his skills. The Tribunal accepts it is understandable that the Applicant would seek to earn money and develop his skills, but it also demonstrates that he does not see rehabilitation programs as a major priority. This is of some concern as most of his offending has been related in some way to his alcohol and drug addictions.
14. The Tribunal is aware of the evidence relating to his 2018 brain injury and how it may affect his decision making and it has taken account of this evidence in assessing the capacity of the Applicant to undertake courses or treatment which might address his substance disorder.
15. The Tribunal notes that his substance abuse predates his brain injury and, other than for becoming a methamphetamine user, his history of substance abuse has not markedly changed since the injury. Further, he has given evidence that he wants to change and intends to address his substance abuse if his visa cancellation is revoked and he is released. He has acknowledged in his oral evidence that he has sufficient insight to understand that his history of substance abuse has an impact on his propensity for violent offending. However, he has demonstrated by his conduct over many years that he is not willing to seriously undertake any substance abuse courses or treatment. His lack of engagement took place before and after his 2018 brain injury. He claims that he will engage if he is released but the Tribunal considers he does not seriously intend to engage with any counselling or courses to address substance abuse. The Tribunal considers he has given this evidence because he understands that his willingness to undertake rehabilitation is a relevant factor in the Tribunal's consideration of his risk in engaging in in further criminal or other serious conduct.
16. The Applicant gave evidence that he attended counselling sessions at Odyssey House and group sessions after he was last released from detention. He also gave evidence that Odyssey House facilitated the provision of accommodation in Sydney on condition the Applicant kept up appointments with a counsellor. He gave evidence that he kept up appointments but continued to use methamphetamine regularly. The Tribunal considers he kept up his appointments primarily to ensure that he kept his accommodation, and that counselling had no effect on his consumption of methamphetamine. .
17. The Applicant stated he would seek to re-engage with Odyssey House and ask for their assistance and counselling for his substance abuse issues if the visa cancellation was revoked. The Applicant did not provide any evidence from Odyssey House that they would be willing to continue to offer their assistance. He stated he had a conversation with B when he was in prison but there is no evidence which confirms the nature of this conversation or whether there was any commitment to provide future assistance.
18. The Applicant did not appear to have any realistic plans for the future if his visa cancellation was revoked and he was released. He stated he would like to live in Sydney and would seek support from Odyssey House or other community groups, but he had no concrete proposals.
19. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant's brain injury may have an effect on his decision making and impulse control. Dr McSwiggan stated in her report (HB G25/170) that it was challenging to measure the range and severity of his frontal lobe injury but noted that it can result in changes in personality. She also stated it is possible that the injury can impact on reasoned judgment and impulse control. She also stated he was not grossly behaviourally impaired.
20. However, when considering the nature of his offences and other conduct since he sustained the brain injury it does not appear that his offending conduct since 2018 differs significantly from his conduct prior to his injury.
21. In letters to the Department (HB G26(d)/182- 189) the Applicant stated that in spite of his re-offending, he needed a second chance. He stated that he had taken Corrective Service courses which have taught him to control his urges and better handle situations. He claimed he had learnt his lesson from the latest event.
22. In another letter (HB G26(d)/186) he stated that he was not a bad person nor a criminal but has made some irresponsible choices in the past but has learnt from his mistakes. He asked for a second chance. The Applicant has submitted that he seeks to be a better example for his children, but the Tribunal considers his concern for his children has not prevented him from in offending in the past and there is little evidence to suggest that their interests will encourage him to cease offending in the future.
23. Taking account of all of the evidence before it, the Tribunal considers that there is a strong likelihood that he will engage in further criminal or other serious conduct if the visa cancellation is revoked.
24. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant is at high risk of reoffending for reasons set out above. As the Tribunal has found the Applicant's offending is very serious and that there is a high risk of reoffending it finds the protection of the Australian community weighs against revocation.

8.2 Family violence committed by the non citizen

1. The Respondent submits that Direction 110 reinforces the Government's serious concerns about conferring the privilege of remaining in Australia on non-citizens who engage in family violence (paragraph 8.2(1)).
2. Relevantly, the term 'family violence' is defined in paragraph 4.1 as "violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person's family (the family member) or causes the family member to be fearful". For the purpose of this definition, a 'member of the person's family' is defined to include "a person who has, or has had, an intimate personal relationship with the relevant person".
3. The Respondent submits, and the Tribunal accepts, that the relevant acts of family violence were perpetrated by the Applicant against his former partner with whom he shares three children, and resulted in various convictions between 2017 and 2021, including for:

(a) assault occasioning actual bodily harm (DV)-T2, which involved the Applicant grabbing his former partner 's arm and head-butting her head with a moderate amount of force (at which time she was 16 weeks pregnant, with another three-year-old child in the home); > > (b) contravening the prohibitions of an ADVO on two occasions in 2019 by refusing to leave his former partner's residence, acting erratically and aggressively, and intentionally causing damage to property by kicking an air conditioner out of the front window, pulling the wood off the veranda roof, and smashing a beer bottle on the veranda (G15/100); and > > (c) a further ADVO contravention and destruction of property offence in 2021, where the Applicant "clearly was told to go away...and then was banging so vigorously on the window of the victim that he broke the pane of the glass" (HB G14/96).

4. The Applicant was asked whether he wished to give evidence regarding offences or conduct involving family violence. With respect to the incident with his former partner he stated that in 2017 she said something to him which made him very angry and that is why he acted the way he did. He accepts that he should not have touched her, but he was very upset by the words she said to him. He stated they were both young, did not have much money, were raising children and under stress. He stated he was not thinking straight and that is why he reacted in the way he did. A female detective came to arrest him and spoke to him about his conduct. When he tried to explain what happened she told him not to blame the victim for his conduct. He started to think about this and later when he went to court, he was very remorseful for what he had done.
5. The Respondent submits that the incident involving A and the attack on his brother's partner were acts of family violence.
6. The Respondent submitted that police records indicated that the Applicant was involved in conduct with a different partner, that is, A where he ripped her shirt and necklace and brought her to the ground causing injuries. The Applicant denies that this person was his partner and claims she was just flatmate and friend. There is little evidence on whether his flatmate was in an intimate personal relationship with the Applicant and the Tribunal accepts his evidence that she was a flatmate. The conduct has, however, been considered in the context of the seriousness of the Applicant's conduct and whether there is a risk to the Australian community of the Applicant engaging in further criminal or other conduct.
7. Similarly, while the Tribunal accepts that the attack on the Applicant's brother's life was an act of violence against a woman, the Tribunal does not consider it can be characterised as an act of family violence using the definition set out in the Direction. The definition set out in the Direction does not define "family" and does not define "relevant person". As a consequence, it is not clear whether the violence against his brother's partner can be characterised as an act of family violence.
8. The Tribunal accepts, however, that the act of violence against his brother's partner is a crime of a violent nature committed against a woman who was part of the Applicant's larger family group. The offence has been considered in the context of the seriousness of the Applicant's offending and whether there is a risk to the Australian community of the Applicant engaging in further criminal or other conduct.
9. The Respondent submits and the Tribunal accepts that the Applicant committed repeated family violence offences after he received warnings about his migration status, it being made clear to him that family violence offending is unacceptable in Australia.
10. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant has provided no evidence to suggest that he has engaged in any rehabilitation to address his family violence issues. He failed to engage in a Domestic Abuse Program as directed by his Community Correctios Officer and was assessed as consistently avoiding intervention to address his domestic violence, anger and alcohol abuse issues (HB TB6(c)/83-86).
11. The Tribunal notes the Applicant's explanation for his failure to attend one session of the program because one of the perpetrators of the assault on him was also attending that session. However, it considers that the material indicates that he failed to attend a number of sessions or to meaningfully engage with the organisers of the program. In the end his suspended sentence was called up in 2021 for his failure to engage in programs as directed, was considered by the District Court (HB G14/95) and he was sentenced to a period of imprisonment as a result.
12. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant has committed acts of family violence as set out above. He has not engaged in any rehabilitation programs since the last known act of family violence but claims that he is remorseful for his conduct and has learned that he must take responsibility for his own actions and not blame the victim. The Tribunal accepts he feels some remorse for his previous conduct but also considers that he has not taken any steps to attend or engage in any family programs to address his history of family violence or those factors which have contributed to his conduct.
13. The Tribunal considers that the Applicant's history of family violence and failure to engage in any rehabilitation programs weighs against revocation.

8.3 The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia

1. Paragraph 8.3 of Direction 110 requires the Tribunal to have regard to the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia. In particular, paragraph 8.3(1) requires the Tribunal to consider any impact of the decision on the Applicant's immediate family members in Australia, where those family members are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely.
2. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant arrived in Australia on 7 September 2005 and has not left Australia since that date. He has lived in Australia for the last 20 years. His evidence was that he arrived and joined a family group; that is, his uncle, his brother, his cousins and woman who could he described as his carer. The Tribunal accepts that he spent some of his formative years in Australia.
3. The evidence indicates he attended school and TAFE and also was employed from time to time in his earlier years. The Tribunal accepts that initially he found it difficult to find work due to poor literacy and limited employment skills. After his father died in 2010, he developed an alcohol dependency and later started using cannabis and methamphetamine regularly. The Tribunal accepts that his criminal history, substance abuse disorder and his later brain injury would have made it very difficult to gain and maintain regular employment after 2010.
4. The Applicant gave no evidence about his uncle and carer. The Applicant gave evidence he has one brother, a few cousins and four children living in Australia.
5. He made some passing references to his cousins but there is little evidence as to the identity of, or the nature of any current relationship with, his cousins. The Tribunal does not consider on the evidence before it, that the visa cancellation would have a significant impact on his cousins.
6. With respect to his brother, the Applicant stated that they were not close. He said his brother has tried hard to stay out of trouble and has his own battles. He stated they spoke sometimes, but his brother did not want to get close because of the Applicant's drug problems. The Applicant once asked if he could stay with him, but his brother refused because of the Applicant's methamphetamine addiction. They talked about it once, but his brother said things which humiliated him and he said things to his brother and the relationship broke down.
7. His brother lives relatively close, but he does not know what his brother is doing now because he is keeping to himself. He last spoke to his brother in about 2023. He called him for assistance, but his brother became angry and told him not to call again.
8. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant does not have any current relationship with his brother and does not consider that his visa cancellation would have a significant impact on his brother.
9. The Applicant told the Tribunal he had four children; "L" aged 12 years," H" aged 10 years, "LY" aged 8 years and "Z" aged 7 years.
10. L was the child of his former partner, but he was very young when the Applicant and his former partner started living together. He has always treated L like his own child and L sees the Applicant as his father. The Applicant and his former partner had two of their own children, H and LY. He also has another child born as a result of a casual sexual contact, that is, Z.
11. He stated that his former partner is now in another relationship. He tries to call his children from time to time but sometimes they do not answer. He told his former partner that the children should call if they would like to talk to him. He stated that he felt connected to his children but they do not talk to him much because he has been in prison or detained over the last five years. He stated that the children have not come to visit him in prison or in immigration detention. He explained that his former partner has a new boyfriend, and she has her own life. With his youngest child Z, he has video calls from time to time.
12. He stated that sometimes when the children's mother calls, he is having dinner or doing something else, and they get upset because he does not answer. He stated that his son really wanted him to go and see him play football and was disappointed he could not attend, and the Applicant felt very sad about that. He told the Tribunal he was also upset because he forgot to call his son on his birthday and felt as though he had let him down. He stated that he loses track of the days when he is in detention. He stated that although he has not seen them for five years, he treats them with love and respect, and he learns a lot from them. He does not know why they are not trying to have contact with him, but he does not want to put pressure on them.
13. He stated that if his visa was cancelled, his children would be affected because they would always want some connection with him.
14. He stated that when he was employed, even when he and his former partner were separated, he would buy things for the children, like food or other things they might need. If he had money, he never said no to them; he often gave his former partner money for clothes. However, he never had too much money because he did not have the opportunity to get regular work. He worked from time to time and tried hard to get jobs, but his criminal history made it hard to find work. He variously worked in cleaning jobs and other casual work. He did have one full time job in Jindabyne some years ago where he was unloading trucks. He stated the owner's wife trusted him and wanted to give him a chance.
15. The Respondent put it to him that he had not provided any paternal support to his children and they would not be significantly impacted if his visa was cancelled. He stated he loved his children and knows he has let them down. He stated he would like his son to come and live with him if he was released and it was put to him that this was not realistic given his current situation.
16. It was also put to him by the Respondent that when he did live with his children that he spent a large proportion of his income on cannabis; money which he could have spent on them. He stated that he gave money to his former partner to help support the children. When he was in Wagga Wagga he bought the children a basketball hoop, an electric scooter and a bike for H.
17. The Applicant last had face to face contact with the children about five years ago but has spoken to them on the telephone and video since the last contact. He stated he had been in prison and detention for a number of years, so contact has been difficult. He spoke to H in January 2025. He pointed out that when he lived with the children, he played with them and had day to day personal contact.
18. He wants to get a job so he can help the children. It was put to him that he did not work when he was living with the children, but he stated he did get a cleaning job in 2016/2017.
19. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant has three biological children and one child who considers the Applicant as his father. The Tribunal accepts that while the Applicant and his former partner lived together, he had day to day contact with the children.
20. The evidence indicate that he and his former partner separated in 2018 and that after separation, he saw his children from time to time but there is no evidence before the Tribunal as to the regularity of that contact. After separation it does not appear that there was a regular pattern of any agreed contact.
21. Although there is little clear evidence on the extent of his financial contributions to the support of the children, the Tribunal accepts the evidence that the Applicant made some financial contributions to the support of his children while the couple lived together and made some occasional contributions after separation. However, it appears that; given the Applicant's period of unemployment, his admission that he spent a large portion of his Centrelink benefits on drugs and alcohol and his periods of imprisonment and detention, his financial contribution has been minimal over the years.
22. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant feels love and affection for his children and genuinely wants to keep a connection with them. However, for the last five years his only contact with the children has been by telephone or video calls and there is no clear evidence as to the regularity of those calls.
23. The Tribunal considers that if the Applicant can maintain telephone and video contact with his children the visa cancellation will not have a significant impact on the children. There is no evidence he provides or has provided any financial support in the last five years and given his brain injury, substance abuse problems and criminal history it is highly unlikely that he will provide any financial support in the immediate future.
24. The Applicant's evidence that he would like H to come and live with him is unrealistic given the Applicant's lack of personal contact with his children in the last five years apart from minimal telephone contact. Further there is no evidence regarding the nature of his relationship with H, he has no realistic plans for H's accommodation, schooling or financial support. Other than for his assertion that he is drug free and intends to remain so, there is no other reliable evidence that if he was released, he would be able to abstain from alcohol or drugs given his history.
25. The Tribunal asked him if there were any other contributions he made to the community. It noted the documents stated he had been a basketball coach. He stated this when he was young and played basketball. He also stated he tried to share his experiences with other people who had problems to help them not make the same mistakes he had made. He gave an example of someone he had counselled with advice about strengthening his relationship with his son and avoiding criminal activity.
26. The Tribunal has considered the impact of a visa cancellation on the Applicant's immediate family members in Australia.
27. It considers that a visa cancellation will have little or no impact on his brother or cousins. There is no evidence of any recent contact or the nature of his family relationships with his cousin. It appears from the Applicant's evidence that his brother is not seeking to have a relationship with the Applicant due to the Applicant's addiction issues.
28. With respect to his children, the Tribunal considers that the impact of a visa cancellation on his children will be minimal. He has not had any in person contact with the children for five years and does not financially contribute to their support. The children live with their mothers. The Tribunal accepts the children may wish to continue a connection with the Applicant, but this can be achieved by modern forms of communication such as video conference, telephone and social media contact.
29. The Applicant stated if he were released from detention, he would seek the assistance of Odyssey House to provide him with accommodation and counselling. Given the Applicant's previous living conditions prior to his last period of imprisonment which were arranged through Odyssey House, it would be difficult to see how it would be in the best interests of the children to have personal contact with the Applicant in a similar setting, even if that were possible.
30. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant has been employed from time to time although there is little evidence as to periods of employment. It accepts he coached basketball when he was young and has tried to share his experiences with other persons in group counselling but considers overall that he has made a minimal positive contribution to the Australian community.
31. This consideration weighs in favour of revocation of the cancellation.

8.4 Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision

1. Paragraph 8.4 of the Direction requires the Tribunal to determine whether (non)-revocation is, or is not, in the best interests of a child affected by the decision, noting that where there are two or more relevant children, individual consideration should be given to the best interests of each child to the extent that their interests may differ.
2. The Applicant has four minor children in Australia who he contends will be affected by the Tribunal's decision (G23/146): L aged 12 years, H aged 10 years, LY aged 8 years and Z aged 7 years.
3. In the documents the Applicant stated he was a good father to his children and used to cook and clean for them and take them out (HB G24/159). He states that his children will be "shattered" if he is removed and they need him in their lives (HB G23/153).
4. There is minimal evidence of what is in the best interests of the children. The evidence set out earlier in this decision outlines the history of the Applicant's relationship with his children and the contributions he has made to the family.
5. Taking the most favourable view of the evidence before the Tribunal, it indicates that the Applicant was living in the same household as the children for a number of year and that he played a part in caring for the children in those years, however, his ability to play a positive role has been limited by drug and alcohol use, periods of detention and imprisonment and acts of domestic violence.
6. Section 60CC (2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) provides that when determining the best interests of the child, courts invested with the jurisdiction to determine orders relating to children, must consider

(a) what arrangements would promote the safety (including safety from being subjected to, or exposed to, family violence, abuse, neglect, or other harm) of: > > (i) the child; and > > (ii) each person who has care of the child (whether or not a person has parental responsibility for the child); > > (b) any views expressed by the child; > > (c) the developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of the child; > > (d) the capacity of each person who has or is proposed to have parental responsibility for the child to provide for the child's developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs; > > (e) the benefit to the child of being able to have a relationship with the child's parents, and other people who are significant to the child, where it is safe to do so; > > (f) anything else that is relevant to the particular circumstances of the child.

7. While there is no reliable evidence on the matters set out above, the Tribunal considers that it is generally in the best interests of children to have a meaningful relationship with both their parents. Although there is evidence of the Applicant's severe substance abuse disorder, a lengthy criminal history and lack of meaningful personal contact with the children in the last five years, the Tribunal considers that it may be in the best interests of the children to maintain telephone, social media or video contact with the Applicant, subject to the agreement of the mothers or to a court order. However, there is no reason why this form of contact could not be maintained even if the Applicant's visa was cancelled.
8. This consideration weighs in favour of revocation of the cancellation.

1. Paragraphs 8.5(1) and (2) of Direction 110 outlines the expectations of the Australian community. Paragraph 8.5(1) sets out the government's view of the expectations of the Australian community as follows:

(1) The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they may do so, the Australian community, as a norm, expects the Government to not allow such a non-citizen to enter or remain in Australia.

(2) In addition, visa cancellation or refusal, or non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of a visa, may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences is such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not be granted or continue to hold a visa.

3. Paragraph 8.5 (2) also states that the Australian community expects that cancellation is appropriate if a non-citizen's conduct raises serious character concerns in Australia or elsewhere of the kind of conduct set out in 8.5(2) (a) to (f). These include acts of family violence, offences relating to forced marriages, commission of serious crimes against women, children or other vulnerable members of the community, commission of crimes against government representatives or officials, involvement in people smuggling, human trafficking, war crimes against humanity and slavery and worker exploitation.
4. Paragraph 8.5(3) of Direction 110 states that the Australian community's expectations apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australia community.
5. The Respondent submits that paragraph 8.5(4) provides that:

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 [in paragraph 8.5(1)-(3)], without independently assessing the community's expectations in the particular case.

6. And, accordingly, the effect of paragraph 8.5 points to the likelihood that this consideration will in most cases call for cancellation, without dictating an inflexible conclusion.[5] The question for a decision-maker is the weight to be attached to this consideration.[6]
7. The Respondent submits that in observing the norm stipulated in paragraph 8.5(1), and principles 5.2(2)-(4), the Australian community would expect that the Applicant should not continue to hold a visa given the serious criminal offending engaged in by the Applicant, even applying a higher tolerance in light of the Applicant having lived here since he was 14 years old.
8. The Applicant's commission of the offence, his history of offending in Australia means the expectation of the Australian community is that the cancellation of the visa should not be revoked.
9. This consideration weighs in favour of affirming the non-revocation of the cancellation.

1. There are three other relevant considerations, being the legal consequences of the decision, the extent of any impediments the Applicant may face if removed from Australia to New Zealand and impact on Australian business interests.

9.1 Legal consequences of decision under s. 501 or 501CA

1. Paragraph 9.1(1) requires the Tribunal to be mindful that the legal consequences of a decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa are that he would be liable for removal from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable under s 198 of the Act, and immigration detention pending that removal.
2. Paragraph 9.1.2 provides that where non-citizens are not covered by a protection finding

(1) Claims which may give rise to international non-refoulement obligations can also be raised by a non-citizen who is not the subject of a protection finding, in responding to a notice of intention to consider cancellation or refusal of a visa under section 501 of the Act, or in seeking revocation of the mandatory cancellation of their visa under section 501CA. Where such claims are raised, they must be considered. > > (2) However, where it is open to the non-citizen to apply for a protection visa, it is not necessary at the section 501/section 501CA stage to consider non-refoulement issues in the same level of detail as those types of issues are considered in a protection visa application. The process for determining protection visa applications is specifically designed for consideration of non-refoulement obligations as given effect by the Act and where it is open to the person to make such an application a decision-maker, in making a decision under section 501/section 501CA, is not required to determine whether non-refoulement obligations are engaged in respect of the person. Having considered the person's representations, the decision-maker may choose to proceed on the basis that if and when the person applies for a protection visa, any protection claims they have will be assessed, as required by section 36A of the Act, before consideration is given to any character or security concerns associated with them. > > (3) Non-refoulement obligations that have been identified for a non-citizen with respect to a country, via an International Treaties Obligations Assessment or some other process outside the protection visa process, would not engage section 197C(3) to preclude removal of the non-citizen to that country. In these circumstances, in making a decision under section 501 or 501CA, decision-makers should carefully weigh any non-refoulement obligation against the seriousness of the non-citizen's criminal offending or other serious conduct. However, that does not mean an adverse decision under section 501 or 501CA cannot be made for the non-citizen. A refusal, cancellation or non-revocation decision will not necessarily result in removal of the non-citizen to the country in respect of which the non-refoulement obligation exists. For example, consideration may be given to removal to another country, or the Minister may consider exercising his/her personal discretion under section 195A to grant another visa to the non-citizen, or alternatively, consider exercising his/her personal discretion under section 197AB to make a residence determination to enable the non-citizen to reside at a specified place in the community, subject to appropriate conditions. Further, following the visa refusal or cancellation decision or non-revocation decision, if the non-citizen makes a valid application for a protection visa, the non-citizen would not be liable to be removed while their application is being determined.

3. The Respondent submits, and the Tribunal finds, that the Applicant is not a person who is covered by a protection finding as defined in s 197C of the Act. While the Applicant previously held a Global Special Humanitarian (Class XB) (subclass 202) visa, that is not a protection visa as defined in the Act, and the grant of that visa to the Applicant did not involve any finding that the Applicant satisfied s 36(2)(a) and/or s 36(2)(aa) of the Act. Accordingly, no protection finding has been made in relation to the Applicant, and s 197C(3) is not engaged.
4. As to the threshold question of the Applicant's nationality, the Respondent submits that the Tribunal should find on the evidence before it (and consistent with the previous Tribunal) that the Applicant is South Sudanese. The Nationality Act 2011 of South Sudan relevantly provides in s 8(1) that:

_A person born before or after this Act has entered into force shall be considered a South Sudanese National by birth if such person meets any of the following requirements - _ > > (a) any Parents, grandparents or great-grandparents of such a person, on the male or female line, were born in South Sudan; or > > (b) such person belongs to one of the indigenous ethnic communities of South Sudan.

5. The Respondent submits that the Applicant is of Dinka ethnicity and therefore satisfies the eligibility requirement in s 8(1)(b) above. Additionally, the Global Special Humanitarian visa application (in which he was included as a dependent Applicant) indicates that both the Applicant and his mother were born in Aweil, Sudan, which is a city that today forms part of what is now known as South Sudan (HB TB1/2). On this basis, the Applicant also satisfies the eligibility requirement in s 8(1)(a) above.
6. Relevantly, the Sudan Nationality Act 1994 was amended in 2011 to insert a new s 10, subsection (2) of which provides that "Sudanese nationality shall automatically be revoked if the person has acquired, de jure or de facto, the nationality of South Sudan". Accordingly, the Respondent contends the Applicant is a citizen of South Sudan.
7. On the material before it, the Tribunal accepts the Applicant is of Dinka ethnicity and was born in Aweil and is satisfied that the Applicant is a national of South Sudan.
8. In the Applicant's written response to the notice of cancellation of his visa the Applicant stated he came to Australia as a refugee and he fears harm due to 'tribalism', the fact he has lived in Australia, and conscription (HB G23/154; G24/161).
9. The Applicant's written claims indicate that he is making a claim of non-refoulement under domestic law, because the claims would fall within an assessment of whether protection obligations would be owed to the Applicant under s 36(2)(a) and/or s 36(2)(aa) of the Act (see also ss 5H(1)(a) and 5J(1)(a)).
10. At the Tribunal Hearing, the Applicant was asked if he wished to give evidence as to what he thought might happen if he was returned to South Sudan.
11. He stated he does not know much about what is happening in South Sudan other than some people are going to Congo. He stated that danger can come from anywhere and the leaders in South Sudan do what they like.
12. He stated he was not fearful of being killed but worried about hunger and general health conditions. He stated that with his brain injury he did not know what health support he might have in South Sudan. He stated he has no family and no connections there. He thinks he has one cousin there, but they have not had contact. He has no memory of his life in South Sudan because he went to Kenya when he was quite young. He stated he would have no support in South Sudan.
13. He stated when it was proposed that he come to Australia he did not want to come because he did not want to lose his traditions and beliefs. He would have liked to stay in Kenya, had accepted living there, did not want to leave that life and did not want to come to Australia. However, he has now spent a large amount of time in Australia and does not know anything about those countries.
14. The Tribunal finds the Applicant is not a person who is covered by a protection finding as defined in s 197C of the Act. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant is able to make a valid application for a protection visa, and the Tribunal's decision will not necessarily result in his removal to South Sudan. The Applicant would not be liable for removal whilst a valid protection visa application was being determined (s 198(5A)). Instead, the Applicant would lawfully remain in immigration detention under ss 189 and 196 of the Act pending the determination of any protection visa application.
15. The Tribunal is mindful that there is a process for determining protection visa applications which enables a full consideration of protection obligations to be considered in greater detail than the level of assessment taken at the s 501CA decision making stage. Importantly, the Applicant will be entitled to make claims based on the reasonably foreseeable future and for there to be a thorough consideration his claims in the context of current country information relevant to the situation in South Sudan.
16. This consideration weighs in favour of revocation of the cancellation.

1. Paragraph 9.2 of Direction 110 requires consideration of the extent of any impediments that the non-citizen may face if removed from Australia to their home country, in establishing themselves and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country), taking into account: the Applicant's age and health; whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers; and any social, medical and/or economic support available to them in that country.
2. The Respondent acknowledges that there is evidence the Applicant suffers from substance abuse issues and a traumatic brain injury (G25/169). The Respondent also acknowledges that the Applicant left South Sudan as a child, and it is likely he would face substantial cultural and language barriers if he returned.
3. At the Tribunal Hearing, the Applicant stated he has no family and no connections there. He thinks he has one cousin there, but they have not had contact. He has no memory of his life in South Sudan because he went to Kenya when he was quite young. He stated he would have no support in South Sudan. He will have no house, and he is disabled with a brain injury and he does not think there is support for persons with disabilities. He does not think he would survive there.
4. This consideration weighs in favour of revocation of the cancellation.

1. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that the visa cancellation would not have any impact on Australian business interests. The Tribunal gives this consideration neutral weight.

1. The Applicant does not pass the character test under s 501 of the Act and the Tribunal must consider whether there is another reason why the decision to cancel his visa should be revoked having regard to the primary and other considerations in the Direction.
2. There has been significant judicial consideration on the exercise of balancing and weighing considerations contained in the relevant ministerial directions, including a number of ministerial directions preceding Direction 110.
3. In determining the weight to be applied to each consideration the Tribunal has considered the primary and other considerations and weighed them in light of the evidence and findings using the guidance provided by Direction 110.
4. The Tribunal notes that its consideration involves an evaluative process, requiring the Tribunal to examine factors for and against revoking the cancellation, and an assessment and evaluation of those factors leading to the formation of a view as to whether the cancellation should be revoked[7].
5. Greater weight must generally be given to the protection of the Australian community than other primary considerations. Greater weight will also generally be given to the primary considerations. The Tribunal has given the primary consideration of the protection of the community greater weight than any other primary consideration.
6. The Tribunal has assessed the Applicant's offending and other conduct as very serious and found he is at high risk of re-offending. The Tribunal finds that this weighs heavily against revocation of the visa cancellation. The Applicant has a long history of violent offending and has shown little interest in taking advantage of rehabilitation options offered to him or seeking such opportunities. Where he has some minor engagement with courses offered to him it has not resulted in a reduction in his offending or other conduct. The Tribunal considers there are continued risks of violent offending, and this weighs heavily against revocation, particularly where the Applicant has had several warnings regarding the consequences of continued offending. The Applicant has a significant substance abuse problem and on the evidence before the Tribunal, there has been no meaningful attempt to address this issue to possibly reduce his danger to the Australian community. The Tribunal has considered the impact of the Applicant's brain injury and while it accepts that this has resulted in a disability, the Applicant's offending has not been markedly different since he sustained the injury. The disability and its impact on the Applicant do not alter the Tribunal's finding that the Applicant is at high risk of engaging in further violent offending or other conduct.
7. The Tribunal also finds that the Applicant has engaged in family violence on several occasions and this weighs against revocation. The Tribunal has also found that the Australian community expects that the cancellation of the applicant's visa is not revoked.
8. The Tribunal considers that the length of time the Applicant has lived in Australia, the ties to his children as well as the best interests of his minor children weigh slightly in favour of revocation, but it does not consider that these considerations outweigh the other considerations which weigh against revocation.
9. The Tribunal has assessed the other considerations.
10. The Tribunal finds that the consequences of visa cancellation are that the Applicant would be liable for removal from Australia pursuant to s 198 of the Act and would be held in detention pending removal.
11. However, if the visa cancellation is not revoked the Applicant will not necessarily face removal as he is able to make a valid application for a protection visa and he would not be liable for removal whilst a protection visa was being determined. He would remain in immigration detention pending consideration of any protection visa application which might be made. Further as set out in Direction 110, consideration may be given to removal to another country, or the Minister may consider exercising his/her personal discretion under section 195A to grant another visa to the non-citizen, or alternatively, consider exercising his/her personal discretion under section 197AB to make a residence determination to enable the non-citizen to reside at a specified place in the community, subject to appropriate conditions.
12. The Tribunal considers the extent of impediments if removed weigh in favour of revocation of the visa cancellation however does not consider this consideration outweighs the primary considerations which weigh against revocation. The Tribunal has weighed the impact on Australian business interests as neutral.
13. The Tribunal finds that the combined weight of the considerations that weigh in favour of not revoking the cancellation outweigh those that favour revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant's visa. Those considerations are the protection of the Australian community, family violence and the expectation of the Australian community. Those considerations which weigh in favour of revocation do not outweigh the countervailing primary considerations.

1. The Tribunal affirms the Reviewable Decision not to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant's Class XB Subclass 202 Global Humanitarian visa.

[1] MFI - Applicant's Further Submissions.

[2] Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural v Thornton [2023] HCA 17; Lesianawai v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 6; Jattan v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 866.

[3] Odyssey House is a support service which aims to improve the health and wellbeing of individuals impacted by substance abuse. It runs residential, community, counselling and referral services to those impacted by substance abuse. https: //odysseyhouse.com.au/about-us/our-purpose/.

[4] PNLB and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration)[2018]AATA 162 at [22].

[5] FYBR Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185; [66] (Charlesworth J), [91] (Stewart J).

[6] FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185 [67] (Charlesworth J) [104] (Stewart J).

[7] Gaspar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) [2016] FCA 1166 at [38].