1. The applicant applied for the visa on 28 April 2023.[11] The Department wrote to the applicant on 10 February 2025 and 2 October 2025, inviting him to comment on information which indicated that he may not pass the character test, and provide reasons why his application should not be refused even if he did not pass the character test.[12] The applicant responded, via his representative, on 5 March 2025 and 30 October 2025.[13] On 14 January 2026 the delegate decided to refuse to grant the visa pursuant to s 501(1) and the applicant was notified of that decision, which is the subject of the current review.
2. The applicant was taken into immigration detention in May 2025.[14] Presently the applicant resides in the Melbourne Immigration Detention Centre.
3. The hearing of the application for review was conducted on 23 and 24 March 2026.

1. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review a decision to refuse to grant a visa under s 501 of the Act, where the application for review is lodged within 9 days after the decision is notified: s 500(6B). In this case, the decision was made on 14 January 2026 and the applicant was notified on 15 January 2026. The application for review was filed on 21 January 2026, within 9 days after the decision was notified within the statutory time limit provided by s 500(6B) of the Act. The Tribunal therefore has jurisdiction to hear and determine the application.
2. Pursuant to s 500(6L) of the Act, the Tribunal is required to make a decision within 84 days of the day after the applicant was notified of the decision or it will be taken to be affirmed. The 84th day in this matter is 9 April 2026.

1. In making a decision in relation to the application, the Tribunal has considered the following:

(a) Documents contained in a 478-page Hearing Book lodged by the Respondent on 19 March 2026 (exhibit HB). > > (b) Oral evidence given by the applicant and his witnesses. > > (c) The oral submissions made on behalf of both parties.

2. Relevant parts of the oral evidence and submissions are considered below.

1. Section 501 of the Act deals with decisions to refuse or cancel a visa on character grounds. Relevantly to this case, s 501(1) of the Act confers a discretionary power on the Minister to refuse to grant a visa if the person does not pass the 'character test' in s 501(6) of the Act. If an applicant fails the character test, the Tribunal must determine whether the discretion under s 501(1) of the Act to refuse to grant the visa should be exercised. The Tribunal is required to stand in the shoes of the original decision-maker but have regard to the state of affairs as it stands at the time of its decision.[15]
2. The Minister may give written directions under s 499(1) of the Act to a person or body having functions or powers under the Act if the directions are about the performance of those functions or the exercise of those powers. Section 499(2A) requires the Tribunal to comply with any directions made under s 499(1). In exercising the discretion under s 501(1), the Tribunal must have regard to the considerations set out in "Direction No 110 - Visa refusal and cancellation under s 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under

s 501CA" (the Direction).

1. The applicant concedes that he does not pass the character test, as he has a 'substantial criminal record' as defined in s 501(6) of the Act.[16] The Tribunal finds that the applicant does not pass the character test. Accordingly, the issue to be determined by the Tribunal is whether the discretion under s 501(1) of the Act to refuse to grant the visa should be exercised.
2. For the purposes of deciding whether to exercise the discretion to refuse to grant the visa, paragraph 5.2 of the Direction sets out several principles that must inform the decision-maker's application of the primary and other considerations set out in Part 2 of the Direction, where those considerations are relevant to the decision. These principles are:

(1) Australia has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia. Being able to come to or remain in Australia is a privilege Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law-abiding, will respect important institutions, such as Australia's law enforcement framework, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Informed by these principles, the Tribunal must take into account the relevant primary and other considerations set out in the Direction. The primary considerations are set out in s 8 of the Direction:

(1) Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;

(2) Whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence;

(3) The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia;

(4) The best interests of minor children in Australia; and

1. A non-exclusive list of other considerations is set out in s 9 of the Direction. These are:

1. The Direction requires decision-makers to keep in mind that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government, and that the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens.[17]
2. The Tribunal is directed to 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.[18]
3. Paragraph 8.1(2) of the Direction requires decision-makers to consider:

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

Nature and seriousness of the applicant's conduct to date

1. The applicant's only recorded criminal convictions are the 2022 convictions.[19] The 2022 convictions arose from the applicant's conduct on the night of 3 January 2020 (the 3 January 2020 incident), which is summarised in the County Court's sentencing remarks as follows:[20]
   1. ...Your former partner, Ms Anderson[21] and a male friend of Ms Anderson, Mr Giacomo Speziale[22], were the victims of your offending. You were in a relationship with Ms Anderson for approximately three years, from 2014. You and Ms Anderson have a young daughter, who was born in September 2016. Your daughter resided with her mother after the two of you separated. She was nearly three years old at the time of your offending.
   2. On 7 February 2019, a family violence interim intervention order was issued at the Heidelberg Magistrates' Court. On 4 July 2019, the same court made a final family violence intervention order. On both orders you were the respondent and Ms Anderson and her child, Mani Izrac[23] from a previous relationship and your mutual child, [BB] were nominated as the protected persons. A copy of this order was duly served on you.
   3. On 3 January 2020, Ms Anderson and Mr Speziale and your infant daughter were at Ms Anderson's home in Thomastown. You attended the home at approximately 11 pm that evening. You walked down the driveway and loitered in the vicinity. Security camera footage showed you peering through windows and attempting to open entry points.
   4. At 11.17 pm, you found and picked up a rock from the ground. You threw the rock through the living room window of the premises causing the window to smash. You entered the home through the broken window and this conduct constitutes Charge 1, aggravated burglary.
   5. You confronted Mr Speziale who was present in the living room. At this time Ms Anderson was in the bedroom trying to get her daughter to go to sleep. You immediately started punching Mr Speziale and dragged him towards the bedroom. As a result of your punches, Mr Speziale suffered bruising to the eye, and this constitutes Charge 3, intentionally causing injury.
   6. Ms Anderson was in the bedroom but exited when she heard the glass smashing and the commotion caused by your assault upon Mr Speziale. Ms Anderson started yelling for help and at first did not recognise you. Your daughter started screaming. While still holding Mr Speziale, you grabbed Ms Anderson's head and pushed it against the bedroom door multiple times. Ms Anderson and Mr Speziale broke free of you and ran through the kitchen to the back door.
   7. You were yelling such things as, 'You got a boyfriend, you got Afghani boyfriend'. Ms Anderson fled into the backyard yelling for help and you followed her. Evidence was given that you said, 'I'll cut your throat' and then went back and grabbed a piece of broken glass. Ms Anderson's evidence was that you started waving it in the air.

'He wanted to put it in my throat but he couldn't. I moved my head and instead of my head, my throat, the glass went in my arm - into my arm.'

1. The piece of glass struck her inner bicep causing a laceration. This conduct constitutes Charge 2, intentionally causing injury.
2. During the incident you made utterances in a language other than English, threatening to kill Ms Anderson. You told her,

'I will kill you. You dating an Afghani man, I will kill you tonight. I will leave you, but you will never be with someone. I - I will kill you.'

12 This constitutes Charge 4, making a threat to kill.

1. After this incident, you left the scene by car. You attended the Mernda Police Station on 5 January 2020, were arrested and participated in a record of interview. You gave a 'no comment' interview which is of course, your right. You were remanded in custody on this date and have been in custody since.
2. The applicant's account of the 3 January 2020 incident is recorded in his October 2025 statutory declaration as follows:[24]

At the end of December 2019, I was informed by one of my friends that he saw [AA] and my daughter at a Medical Centre. I was worried about my daughter so I asked my cousin who had a friendship with [AA] to give her a call and see if everything was okay and if I could see my daughter. My cousin spoke to her, and she told him that 'she is fine, and I do not let him see his daughter'.

After a few days, I couldn't get my daughter out of my head, and I was worried for her. On 3 January 2020, whilst under the influence of alcohol, I decided to go to [AA]'s house again in the hope of seeing my daughter through the window. When I arrived at the house, I could hear [BB] crying. Her cry triggered me and made me think of the incident that happened a few weeks after she was born, when she fell and got injured. I lost control and tried entering the house. I do not remember all the events of this incident due to my intoxication, but I remember breaking the living room window and entering the house and getting in a physical altercation with [AA] and her partner.

At that moment I lost my temper and was not thinking properly. I do not blame anyone but myself for my actions, and it is something I regret deeply. There is no excuse for my behaviour, and I know that I caused a lot of fear and pain to everyone. Once I left the property and processed what happened, I turned myself into police.

1. At the hearing, the applicant agreed that the summary in the Court's sentencing remarks[25] accurately reflected the circumstances of the 2022 convictions. The applicant maintained that he could not recall exactly what he said to AA on the night of the offence as he was so intoxicated, but accepted that that was what he said, and that he should not have been at AA's home and done what he did.
2. The applicant claimed that he handed himself into the police after the 3 January 2020 incident and initially plead guilty as soon as the charges were laid against him. He only changed his plea on the day of the sentencing hearing, when his lawyers told him that AA had contacted them and informed him that she wanted to drop all the charges. The applicant stated that after changing his plea he was required to change his lawyer and barrister, but that the new lawyers did not tell him anything about his case or provide him with access to the brief of evidence. Whilst reiterating that he was guilty and he accepted responsibility for his conduct, the applicant maintained that he did not have a fair trial, which led to the situation he was in now.
3. The applicant was asked about the following passage in the sentencing remarks:

[40] I accept that you are in an extremely difficult position regarding your immigration status, and this may have been a factor in your decision to plead not guilty. However, you gave sworn evidence before the jury that you were not the person depicted on the CCTV footage lurking outside the premises. You denied that you were the offender.[26]

1. The applicant stated that the judge may have misinterpreted his comment, which he made when his lawyers called him to give evidence at the trial and was asked about CCTV footage of the 3 January 2020 incident. The applicant claimed that his state of mind was not good at the time - he was extremely stressed and not sleeping, which affected his ability to concentrate - and his lawyers had not told him that he would be giving evidence at the trial. The applicant told the jury that he had not seen the CCTV footage, so could not say that the person depicted was him, because his lawyers had never provided him with the footage to view.
2. The applicant told the Tribunal that he knew that what he did on 3 January 2020 was wrong. He also wanted to show he was sorry through his actions, because he believed that it was not enough to just say sorry without changing anything. The applicant gave evidence that he had tried to work on himself since the day of the offence, by completing a lot of programs and seeing a psychologist to help him understand his behaviour and change his mindset.

1. Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a) of the Direction states that without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered very serious, that acts of family violence are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian community.[27] 'Family violence' is defined by the Direction as meaning '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'.[28] Examples include stalking, repeated derogatory taunts, and intentionally damaging or destroying property.[29]
2. Documents before the Tribunal indicated that the applicant has had at least 4 FVIOs made against him preceding and following the 3 January 2020 incident, namely in 2016, 2018, 2019 and 2021.[30] The delegate refers to those FVIOs in their decision record, finding that the orders 'indicate a trend of domestic violence' which continued until the 2022 convictions, and that the applicant's conduct demonstrated that the FVIOs had 'no deterrent effect', given that 'he later escalated his domestic violence' which culminated in a period of incarceration.[31]
3. At the hearing, the applicant claimed that AA took out the 2016 FVIO when she was pregnant with BB and told the police that the applicant wanted her to abort the baby. He could not recall why the 2018 order was taken out. The 2019 FVIO was taken out by the police after he and AA had a verbal disagreement over the phone, and the 2021 FVIO was taken out after the 3 January 2020 incident.
4. During cross-examination the applicant was asked about information obtained from Victoria Police in response to a summons. These included:
   • a 'sub incident summary report' created in May 2016, in which it is alleged that after the applicant had an ultrasound and discovered her unborn baby was a girl, she was fearful of telling the applicant as he made it very clear that she is to have a boy, not a girl. The applicant and AA had a verbal argument after the applicant learned that the baby would be a girl, and the applicant subsequently insisted that AA was to have an abortion.[32]
   • a 'sub incident summary report' created in January 2019, in which it is alleged that the applicant attempted to contact AA after dropping off BB following a visit and, when the call was answered by a third party, verbally abused the third party and subsequently AA, asking AA "what is it you want me to do, come there and kill you and put you to pieces? ... I can even send people to Iran to kill your parents".[33]
5. The applicant denied both accounts, stating that they were incorrect and that he never made the threats described in the reports. The applicant claimed that when a female makes comments of this kind to police, the police will always take it seriously and believe what the female said. At the time the reports were lodged the police had not had a chance to hear from the applicant, but after the police got involved he went to speak to the police, to show that he was not a threat. The applicant also pointed out that he was never charged with an offence in relation to the 2016 or 2019 reports.

1. The applicant's representative submits that while the applicant's offending is serious, he does not have a longstanding criminal history and is remorseful for the harm that was caused by his offending.[34] Mr McLean states that the 3 January 2020 incident occurred at a time when the applicant was experiencing significant and untreated mental health difficulties, having subsequently been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), generalised anxiety disorder and moderate depression, which were rooted in his past persecution, chronic stressors and trauma experienced before and during his time in Australia, and exacerbated by his use of alcohol.[35] He further submits that the applicant is remorseful and accepts responsibility for his actions, and has undertaken extensive therapeutic work during his imprisonment and detention to address the factors that contributed to his past behaviour. The applicant has completed cognitive-behavioural anger management programs, mental health courses, alcohol and other drugs (AOD) education, and has abstained from alcohol. He is committed to continuing with psychological treatment, including by maintaining his sobriety and completing a men's behaviour-change program in the community.[36]
2. Citing the (differently constituted) Tribunal's decision in Cruckshank v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs,[37] the applicant's representative states that in considering the nature and seriousness of the applicant's other conduct, the Tribunal ought not have regard to the accounts contained in the material obtained from Victoria Police on the basis that they are a record of allegations, not a record of any finding that the alleged behaviour did in fact occur.[38]
3. The respondent submits that the applicant's conduct is 'very serious' for several reasons:[39]

• First, because the 3 January 2020 incident involved acts of violence against the applicant's ex-partner, in the presence of their infant daughter. The applicant's actions were described by the sentencing judge as 'appalling' and caused AA to experience emotional trauma, sleeplessness and anxiety. They were committed while the applicant was subject to an intervention order preventing him from contacting or approaching AA. The sentencing judge found the applicant's conduct to involve pre-meditation, rather than being a spontaneous act of rage. The 3 January 2020 incident also occurred after the applicant had been formally warned, through the 2018 warning letter, about the impact of any future conduct upon his migration status.
  • Secondly, because the applicant also engaged in other serious conduct within the meaning of cl 8.1.1(1) of the Direction, because his past behaviour led to four FVIOs being imposed for the protection of AA and BB between 24 November 2016 and 17 August 2021.[40] The respondent submits that the Tribunal should have regard to the description of the applicant's conduct contained in the 2016 and 2019 Victoria Police summary reports, as they offer a more plausible explanation for why the FVIOs were issued than the applicant's account of events, and should find that the applicant's behaviour (as recorded in those reports) constitutes 'family violence' within the meaning of paragraph 4(1) of the Direction.

4. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds the applicant's criminal conduct to be very serious. The 3 January 2020 incident was a violent crime committed against a woman (AA) and her partner, in the presence of a child (BB), and involved acts of family violence within the meaning of the definition in the Direction, which the Australian Government and Australian community considers to be very serious.[41]
5. The Tribunal has also had regard to the impact of the applicant's offending on AA, as outlined in the excerpts of AA's victim impact statement summarised by the County Court:[42]
   1. Ms Anderson completed a victim impact statement that was read at the plea hearing by the learned prosecutor. I have read that statement carefully and have taken its contents into consideration. Ms Anderson has clearly been emotionally traumatised by your conduct. She suffers from sleeplessness and since the offences, had to use anti-depressant medication twice a day. She says she's living the fear, anger and anxiety and it is affecting the lives of her children. She describes not being able to wear short sleeves, as she has a scar on her arm from where you cut her with a piece of glass.
   2. Her young daughter questions her about this scar when she sees it. She has to consider laser surgery to remove the scar, but this costs money. She felt she had to move from the property where the offending occurred, and this also impacted her financially. She states she has lost trust in men, and now regards them all as violent, bullying and controlling. She fears this will affect her relationship with her son.
6. The Tribunal finds that the impact of the offending on AA, as summarised in the court's sentencing remarks, underscores the seriousness of the applicant's criminal conduct.[43]
7. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant's criminal conduct is limited to 4 offences occurring on one day, and accordingly finds that there is no frequent or repeated offending or any trend of increasing seriousness (the applicant's family violence conduct is considered separately under paragraph 8.2(3)(b) of the Direction).[44] However, the Tribunal finds that the seriousness of the applicant's criminal conduct is compounded by the fact that his offending occurred after he had been formally warned, in writing, about the consequences of further offending on his migration status (namely the 2018 warning letter).[45]
8. The Tribunal has also considered the evidence of the FVIOs taken out against the applicant between 2016 and 2021, and the evidence about the circumstances in which those orders were made. The Tribunal accepts the applicant's general account of the incidents summarised at [‎34] above, namely that AA took out the FVIOs after having an argument with the applicant. The Tribunal also accepts that the accounts of the 2016 and 2021 incidents contained in the Victoria Police summary reports only corroborate the fact that AA made complaints alleging that the applicant committed the conduct described in the reports, not that the claimed conduct actually occurred. However, the Tribunal finds that both the applicant's account of events and the Victoria Police records - coupled with the FVIOs - demonstrate that in both 2016 and 2019, following a disagreement with the applicant, AA was so fearful that she reported his behaviour to police, leading to FVIOs being issued against the applicant. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant's conduct in 2016 and 2019 does not constitute criminal conduct, but finds that it does fall within the meaning of 'family violence' as defined in paragraph 4(1) of the Direction, in that it was behaviour that caused his family member (AA) to be fearful. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the applicant engaged in acts of family violence prior to the 3 January 2020 incident, which the Australian Government and the Australian community views ver[46]seriously.46
9. The Tribunal finds that there is no evidence that the applicant has engaged in conduct of the type outlined in paragraph 8.1.1(1)(b) of the Direction, provided false or misleading information to the Department,[47] or committed any offences in another country.[48]

1. Paragraph 8.1.2 of the Direction requires decision-makers to 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. Further, it states that some conduct and the harm that would be caused, if repeated, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated is unacceptable.
2. In assessing the risk that may be posed to the Australian community the Direction sets out the following factors decision-makers must have regard to, cumulatively, at paragraph 8.1.2:

a) the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct; and > > b) the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account: > > 1. information and evidence on the risk of the non­citizen re-offending; and > 2. evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since their most recent offence (noting that decisions should not be delayed in order for rehabilitative courses to be undertaken) ...

1. There is no statutory constraint on the way that risk is assessed by the decision-maker other than that there must be a rational and probative basis for the assessment.[49]

1. The applicant has provided a confidential psychological report prepared by a forensic psychologist, Ms Carla Ferrari, dated 28 November 2023 (Ferrari report). Ms Ferrari did not give evidence at the hearing, despite the respondent requesting that she be made available for cross-examination. At the hearing, the applicant's lawyer submitted that any criticisms of the Ferrari report are matters for the Tribunal in assessing the weight to be given to it. This is considered further below.
2. The Ferrari report states that the applicant experienced a 'prejudicial childhood with physical abuse, emotional neglect and discrimination from his father' which 'deprived [the applicant] of having a normal childhood'. Ms Ferrari notes that 'childhood abuse disrupts the development of emotional regulation in children and can impact their ability to regulate themselves and manage their emotions and impulses', and in the applicant's case, contributed to the development of generalised anxiety disorder and symptoms akin to PTSD, impairing his ability to rationalise, consider alternative responses, and decision-making.[50] She opines that:

Symptoms of depression, anxiety and trauma can fluctuate in intensity and frequency, however, are particularly prone to exacerbation under situations of extreme stress Individuals with PTSD in particular are more likely than those without a trauma history, to respond to situations disproportionately when their threat system is reactivated.

This is particularly relevant for [GFKG]; at the time of the offending he would have struggled to manage his overwhelming anxiety and distress due to his circumstances of being unable to see his daughter, and his alcohol intoxication would have further compromised his ability to think clearly, rationalize, and would have been prone to reacting impulsively to any stressors and in particular to any perceived threat or distress to his child.[51]

1. Ms Ferrari assesses the applicant's risk of further violent reoffending as low to low-moderate.[52] Ms Ferrari notes that her assessment takes into account the following factors:
   • the applicant has no history of antisocial behaviour that would suggest any concern for his future conduct;[53]
   • the applicant has no history of criminal behaviour or violence preceding the 3 January 2020 incident, indicating that this was an isolated incident and not characteristic of the applicant, and has expressed remorse for his actions and the impact they would have had on the victims;[54]
   • the applicant has previously been employed, and once released has an offer of employment and accommodation;[55] and
   • the applicant has positively engaged in appropriate programs specific to his mental health, parenting and alcohol use since the offences were committed, and plans to engage in psychological treatment once released.[56]
2. Ms Ferrari opines that the applicant's risk would 'immediately elevate' if he were to continue to use alcohol or fail to engage with mental health professionals to address his underlying trauma symptoms and the grief and loss associated with his family and his daughter.[57] She notes that:

Protective factors that may mitigate [GFKG]'s risk of reoffending include his willingness to engage with mental health and support services as evidenced by his engagement in programs in custody and his requests to engage with prison psychiatric services (though this has not been possible), his demonstrated ability to abstain from alcohol in the past, support from his a number of prosocial supports in the community, lack of any association with antisocial peers, his genuine remorse for his actions, and the absence of violent ideation or an antisocial belief system. This is supported by [GFKG]'s absence of any criminal history or violence prior to the index offence.[58]

1. The applicant has also provided the Tribunal with completion certificates for a number of courses he has undertaken in prison and immigration detention.[59] These include courses in emotional awareness, anger management, depression and anxiety management, relationship building, and positive parenting. In addition, the applicant gave evidence that he had completed a structured CBT anger-management program,[60] undertaken 7 trauma counselling sessions with Foundation House,[61] and regularly meets with a counsellor in immigration detention.[62] The applicant has also undertaken extensive vocational training whilst in prison and detention,[63] and engaged with an employment specialist while in prison to discuss employment options if he was permitted to remain in Australia.[64]
2. At the hearing, the applicant gave evidence that he was a different person to the one he was 7 years ago. He had worked hard on himself and had completed a number of programs in prison and detention to improve himself. When asked why he had not sought help with his mental health before the 3 January 2020 incident, the applicant stated that he used to struggle to ask for help and did not know where to get support. He didn't want to talk to his friends or family because he used to believe that you were 'weak' if you wanted to talk about depression or mental health, so instead he turned to alcohol. The applicant claimed that after completing courses and consulting with psychologists in prison and immigration detention he realised that there was help available for him, he just didn't know how to access it before. He now knew that it wasn't a weakness to talk about mental health, that he had lots of support, and that he knew where to go to get help with his life.
3. The applicant gave evidence that he regularly engaged with a psychologist while in immigration detention, had spoken to a Foundation House counsellor about his past trauma, and intended to continue with his counselling if permitted to remain in Australia. He would also have the support of his family, friends and new partner (hereafter referred to as SS). One of his elder sisters (hereafter referred to as N), who was an Australian citizen and lived in Sydney, had offered the applicant a job and a place to stay, as had his friend (hereafter referred to as AS). The applicant claimed that SS, with whom he began a relationship while in immigration detention, was the centre of his support.
4. The Tribunal has also received statements and oral evidence from N, AS and SS about the support they intend to provide the applicant if he were permitted to remain in Australia.[65]
5. N gave evidence that she had reconciled with the applicant in 2025 after a long period of estrangement. N felt that she and her other family members let the applicant down because they weren't there for him at the time that the 3 January 2020 incident occurred. N stated that the applicant now had 'all the support in the world' from her. She worked as a project manager in construction so she could find him work, and had a 3-bedroom house that he could come to live in. N believed that the applicant had lost many years in prison and detention and wanted to help support him so that he could 'hit the ground running' when released.
6. AS gave evidence that he had known the applicant since around 2018. They became close friends over the years, and AS regularly spoke to the applicant and visited him in detention. AS was aware that the applicant had committed an offence of family violence involving AA and her ex-boyfriend. He stated that when they spoke on the phone the applicant would repeatedly acknowledge that he knows that he did the wrong thing, is deeply sorry, and fully understands the consequences of his past behaviour. AS gave evidence that he and his wife owned their own house, where they lived with their newborn child, and had a bungalow on the property where the applicant was welcome to stay. AS also stated that he would provide the applicant with food and a car, and that he would easily be able to find the applicant a job.
7. SS gave evidence that she first met the applicant at a social event before his imprisonment, but did not get to know him properly until after he was imprisoned, when she became re-acquainted with the applicant through his cousin. They began a romantic relationship while the applicant was in immigration detention. SS visited the applicant in detention twice per week, despite living about 65km away, and spoke to the applicant on the phone every day. SS was aware of the 3 January 2020 incident, having read all of the material in Exhibit HB, including the sentencing remarks of the County Court. She had also discussed the incident with the applicant in detail. In her statement, SS writes:

I am fully aware of the offending that occurred in 2020. I do not minimise any of it. We have discussed that incident in detail. I am a direct person and I have always felt able to ask him difficult questions, and he has never avoided them. [GFKG] accepts responsibility for what he did and has never offered excuses. He has told me plainly that there is no excuse for what happened, that he is deeply remorseful, and that it pains him that he is currently not able to have a relationship with his daughter. This is something he carries heavily.

In our conversations he now focuses on ways of coping with stress, on staying sober, and on the practical steps he needs to follow if he is released. His reflections are calm and grounded and he speaks about triggers and responses in a way that shows his insight and growth. These impressions are based on our daily contact over a long time, and on observing him in person during visits.

I have gained a strong understanding of [GFKG]'s daily routine and structure. He is remarkably disciplined. He never misses a day at the gym, even during extreme weather conditions. He attends the coffee club where he makes coffees for detainees and officers. He participates in sewing classes, where he sews and repairs clothing, and he attends cooking classes to expand his practical skills. I hear the way he respectfully communicates with both officers and other detainees. He offers support to detainees who are struggling, comforting them through conversation or by sharing the limited resources he has, including food. He also maintains very high standards of hygiene and self‑care. His room is always clean, his bed is made daily, he washes his clothes regularly, and he takes pride in his grooming, maintaining a tidy beard and cutting his own hair. [66]

1. SS told the Tribunal that she had spoken to the applicant about his offending and observed his relationships with the other women he has in his life, such as his mother and K. Those observations and conversations led her to believe that the applicant was remorseful and regretful for his past actions. SS was aware that AS had offered the applicant a place to stay, and SS intended to support the applicant with anything he needed, including by staying with him at AS's property on weekends and the 2 days each week that she worked from home, to help reinforce routines and attend any appointments with him as needed.
2. The Tribunal also heard from the applicant's friend K. K gave evidence that she first met the applicant about 9 years ago when they studied English together, and their relationship developed into a mother-son bond. The applicant used to visit K and her family at their home, and K's son regarded the applicant as a brother. K had met AA and BB and observed the applicant to have a 'warm and caring' relationship with his child. K had visited the applicant in prison and detention and spoke to him on social media every day.
3. K told the Tribunal that she was extremely angry, surprised and saddened when she learned about the 3 January 2020 incident. She could not believe that such a kind and compassionate person could do a thing like that. K had spoken to the applicant about what he had done and believed that he was extremely regretful for his actions.

1. The applicant's representative submits that the applicant presents a low risk of future offending, particularly of any conduct to cause physical or psychological harm.[67] Mr McLean refers to the following evidence as corroborating this claim:
   • The forensic psychological assessment of Ms Carla Ferrari dated 28 November 2023,[68] in which Ms Ferrari concluded that the applicant's risk of further violent offending is low to low-moderate, he demonstrates no antisocial personality traits or enduring behavioural patterns associated with high recidivism risk.[69]
   • The applicant's descriptions of his past conduct are recorded in Ms Ferrari's report, which illustrate that he has genuine remorse and insight.[70]
   • The applicant's engagement in extensive rehabilitation during his imprisonment and detention, which included completing a wide suite of evidence-based therapeutic programs targeting core criminogenic needs and emotional regulation,[71] a structured, psychologist-led anger management intervention,[72] and 7 sessions of torture and trauma counselling with Foundation House.[73] Mr McLean submits that the applicant's therapeutic progress further lowers his already low assessed risk of reoffending.[74]
   • The statements of two detention services officers[75] demonstrate that the applicant has shown maturity, stability, and consistent pro-social conduct in the high-stress detention environment.
2. It is submitted by the applicant that the course completion certificates and written references from prison, detention and vocational staff,[76] coupled with the offers of accommodation and support from the applicant's sister, partner and close friends,[77] demonstrate that the applicant has a strong and structured reintegration plan which provides a protective buffer against reoffending and further confirms that the applicant does not pose an unacceptable risk to the community.[78]
3. The respondent's lawyer submits that the following evidence compels the conclusion that the applicant presents a medium to high risk of re-offending:[79]
   • The applicant's attitude towards his criminal offending, which the respondent submits is inconsistent with his claimed insight, contrition and remorse. This includes his sworn evidence to the jury in his criminal trial that he was not the person depicted in the CCTV footage of the incident, his commission of the 3 January 2020 incident whilst being subject to an intervention order, and his claims to have committed the offence because he 'lost control', despite the sentencing judge's findings that his offending involved pre-meditation and he had time to reflect on his actions.[80]
   • The applicant's evidence that the FVIOs were not taken out because he was being violent to AA is inconsistent with material from Victoria Police, including the 'sub incident summary reports' summarised at [‎35] above, one of which indicates that the police applied for at least one intervention order 'to ensure the safety and wellbeing of [AA] and her chil[81]en'.81 The respondent submits that while the incidents recorded in the Victoria Police documents did not result in charges or convictions, they have probative value as they were created by regulated State-based organisations with a statutory obligation to investigate crime, and the applicant's denial that he was being violent to AA represents a failure to take responsibility for his conduct and cuts across any claimed insight[82]r remorse.82
   • Ms Ferrari's assessment of the applicant as a 'low' risk of re-offending is undermined by assumptions made in her report, including:
     • her view that the applicant 'did not intentionally set out to harm anyone' on the night of the 3 January 2020 incident, which is inconsistent with the Sentencing Judge's finding that 'there is clearly an element of premeditation in your crime' and '[t]his was not a spontaneous act of rage. You had a chance to reflect upon what you were doing and you chose to break in to the home and assault and threaten those inside';[83]
     • her view that the 3 January 2020 incident was an 'isolated incident and is not characteristic of [GFKG]', and her finding that the 'other antisocial behaviour' risk factor on the HCR-20 was not present is inconsistent with the Victoria Police materials and FVIOs; and
     • there is no clear basis for Ms Ferrari's conclusion that the applicant demonstrated remorse and insight.[84]
   • The specifics of the support offered by N, SS and AS are unclear, such as where the applicant will be living or whether he will be able to access all the supports offered to him, given that N lives in a different state to SS and AS.[85]
4. The respondent further submits that if the applicant were to commit further offences like the 3 January 2020 incident, members of the Australian community might suffer very serious physical and psychological harm, and having regard to the very serious nature of the applicant's past offending, that this consideration should carry significant weight in favour of refusal. [86]

1. Given the Tribunal has found, for reasons set out earlier, that the conduct leading to the 2022 convictions is very serious, it is also satisfied that the nature of the potential harm to the Australian community if the applicant engages in similar conduct in the future would similarly be very serious. If this eventuated, the Tribunal agrees with the respondent's contention that such conduct could involve physical and psychological harm to members of the community. For these reasons the Tribunal considers the nature of the harm to individuals should the applicant engage in further criminal conduct or other serious conduct is likely to be very serious.[87]
2. In addressing the likelihood of the applicant engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant is remorseful for his behaviour on 3 January 2020. The Tribunal does not consider the applicant's conduct at the criminal trial (such as his comments about the CCTV footage) or his description of his offending as having 'lost control' to be a qualification of his remorse, given his oral evidence about the context in which he gave evidence at the trial, and Ms Ferrari's description of how the applicant's psychological symptoms manifested in his behaviour on the night of the offending.[88] The Tribunal also accepts that the applicant has undertaken extensive rehabilitation whilst in prison and detention, is undertaking ongoing counselling to address the psychological factors that contributed to his past behaviour, and has structured support available to him if permitted to remain in Australia, including offers of accommodation and employment.
3. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant is committed to undertaking ongoing treatment, counselling and rehabilitation programs if permitted to remain in Australia, and that his family, partner and friends will support him to do so. Whilst the Tribunal accepts the respondent's submission that the applicant's support network did not prevent him from offending in the past, it places weight on the applicant's evidence that he previously didn't ask for help because he used to believe that it was 'weak' to talk about depression or mental health, but that he now knew that it wasn't a weakness and that he had many people he could speak to if he needed help.
4. The Tribunal has had regard to Ms Ferrari's assessment of the applicant's risk of further violent reoffending as low to low-moderate.[89] The Tribunal has reservations about an assumption that underpins this assessment, namely Ms Ferrari's finding that the 'other antisocial behaviour' risk factor on the HCR-20 was not present.[90] Ms Ferrari defines 'other antisocial behaviour' as:

...generally an entrenched pattern of deviant behaviour in which the individual has no regard for the rights of others, consistently engages in rule or law-breaking behaviour, and does not conform to society's expected standards of conduct. Further, antisocial individuals act impulsively, have no regard for the safety of themselves or others, and act in a reckless manner, as well as engage in antagonistic and manipulative behaviour to have their own needs met.[91]

1. Without further clarification from Ms Ferrari:
   • the Tribunal cannot determine whether the applicant's conduct prior to 3 January 2020 falls within the meaning of 'other antisocial behaviour' for the purposes of HCR-20; and
   • the Tribunal has no evidence that Ms Ferrari was aware of the FVIOs granted against the applicant in 2016 and 2018, or whether she discussed with the applicant the circumstances in which the previous FVIO were obtained.[92]

Accordingly, the Tribunal places less weight on Ms Ferrari's assessment of the applicant's risk of further violent reoffending, on the basis that it has been unable to ask Ms Ferrari about the assumptions which underpinned her assessment of risk.

1. Despite the above reservations, the Tribunal does place weight on Ms Ferrari's assessment of how the applicant's generalised anxiety disorder and PTSD contributed to his conduct on 3 January 2020; as well as her assessment of the protective factors that may mitigate the applicant's risk of reoffending. The Tribunal also accepts that the applicant took action after the Ferrari report was prepared to ensure the protective factors she identified were in place, and in doing so, has helped reduce the risk of his reoffending. Accordingly, on the evidence before it, the Tribunal accepts that the likelihood of the applicant engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct is low to moderate.[93]
2. The Tribunal does not consider the matters contained in paragraph 8.1.2(2)(c) of the Direction to be relevant, as the applicant is not applying for a short stay visa.

Conclusion on protection of the Australian community

1. In the applicant's case the Tribunal has taken into account the Government's view that the applicant's criminal offending and other conduct is very serious, that the harm to the Australian community should the applicant engage in similar conduct to the 3 January 2020 incident is significant, and that the Australian community's tolerance of any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases.[94]
2. In assessing the risk to the Australian community the Tribunal has placed significant weight on the evidence of the applicant's remorse, the rehabilitation he has completed, his commitment to ongoing counselling and psychological treatment to address his underlying trauma symptoms, and the structured support offered by N, SS and AS if the applicant is permitted to remain in the community. The Tribunal has also placed some weight on the information and assessments contained in the Ferrari report, noting its reservations about the report discussed above.
3. Overall, and having had regard to the very serious nature of the applicant's conduct and the low to moderate risk of his reoffending, the Tribunal gives this primary consideration significant weight in favour of refusing to grant the applicant's visa.

1. Paragraph 8.2(1) provides that 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 respect are proportionate to the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the non-citizen.
2. As was noted previously, documents before the Tribunal indicate that the applicant has had at least 4 FVIOs made against him preceding and following the 3 January 2020 incident.[95] The applicant also referred to another FVIO, made in September 2016, in his visa application.[96]
3. The applicant describes the circumstances surrounding those FVIOs in his October 2025 statutory declaration as follows:[97]

1. [AA] brought an FVIO against me in 2016 when she fell pregnant with [BB]. When [AA] informed me of her pregnancy, I expressed that I didn't want to proceed with the pregnancy. She went to the police station and got an FVIO against me, as she thought I would force her to terminate the pregnancy. I never was violent towards her or made any such threats. This IVO was issued for a period of 12 months, but after 3-4 months, [AA] withdrew the FVIO.
2. A few weeks after [BB] was born, there was an incident on the 12 October 2016, when [BB] fell while being held by [AA]. We immediately took [BB] to the Royal Childrens Hospital to get her injuries assessed. At the hospital, the doctor contacted the Department of Families, Fairness, and Housing (DFFH), as they were concerned about how [BB] sustained her injuries. [BB] was taken into foster care while an investigation was conducted, but no charges were ever made. ...
3. Upon the recommendation of DFFH, I ended my relationship with [AA] so that [BB] could return to live with her mother. I was permitted to have supervised visits with my daughter, and I informed DFFH that I would be prepared to initiate another FVIO against myself to ensure I do not return to the relationship. A second FVIO was issued against me in 2017[98] and ended after 12 months. During this period, I had no contact with [AA].
4. Once the FVIO expired, [AA] and I got in contact again so that I could arrange to see [BB]. Once I called [AA] to inform her that [BB]'s pacifier was left in my car, but someone else picked up her phone and said that [BB] had left her phone and our daughter with him. Although there was no FVIO against me at the time, [AA] called the police and then an officer called me to attend the station, and I went there. They issued another FVIO against me, as [AA] had claimed that I threatened her over the phone. This was not true, and I had not spoken to her.

1. [AA] eventually started becoming controlling and used my daughter as a bargaining chip. She would only allow me to see [BB] when she wanted money, or something from me. I financially support [AA] and would give her money whenever she requests it. This money was also used to pay for expenses for my daughter. Eventually when I stopped complying with [AA]'s demands, she stopped allowing me to see my daughter. This was a very difficult time for me, both mentally and emotionally. I have had no contact with my daughter since 2018.[99]
2. I went to DFFH at the end of 2018 to see how I could gain access to my daughter. I was informed that I needed to do a men's behavioural program, which went for a duration of 1 year. l tried to enroll in this course, however it was full everywhere, and I was placed on a waiting list and informed that I may have to wait 10 months before starting the course.
3. I felt frustrated and hopeless during this time. All I wanted to do was see my daughter and spend time with her, but I couldn't even do that. Mentally I became unstable and turned to alcohol to numb the pain. ...
4. At the hearing, the applicant was asked about the 2016 incident and DFFH's intervention, and in particular his evidence that BB was returned to AA after she completed a 2-week residential care program.[100] The applicant claimed that DFFH did not offer the applicant the opportunity to complete the 2-week program, only the 1 year men's behavioural program.
5. The applicant gave evidence that he has completed a number of parenting courses, including a parenting after separation program in 2018 and positive parenting seminars in 2023.[101] If permitted to remain in Australia, the applicant wanted to complete the men's behavioural program and to go to the courts to seek access to BB, if possible. He stated that he regretted how his past conduct had affected BB, and that even if he were not permitted to see BB, he did not want her to think that he had abandoned her or that he did not love her.
6. The applicant's representative submits that while family violence is of great concern to the Australian Government and the Australian community, the applicant's rehabilitation, insight and sustained behavioural change must be taken into account. Mr McLean points to the courses completed by the applicant, the reports of Ms Ferrari and Foundation House, the applicant's ongoing engagement with psychological treatment and his commitment to maintaining trauma-informed mental health care in the community as substantially qualifying the weight that should be given in favour of refusal under this consideration.[102]
7. The respondent's representative submits that this consideration should carry significant weight in favour of refusal, having regard to the applicant's history of family violence against AA and his failure to accept responsibility for his family violence conduct.[103]

1. The applicant has conceded, and the Tribunal finds, that the 3 January 2020 incident involved family violence as defined in the Direction. The Tribunal therefore finds that the applicant has been found guilty of offences of family violence, within the meaning of paragraph 8.2(2)(a) of the Direction.
2. For reasons discussed at [‎44] above, the Tribunal finds that the applicant's conduct towards AA in 2016 and 2019 does not constitute criminal conduct but does fall within the meaning of 'family violence' as defined in paragraph 4(1) of the Direction, in that it was behaviour that caused his family member (AA) to be fearful. The Tribunal therefore finds that there is information from independent and authoritative sources (namely the Victoria Police records and the FVIOs) which indicate that the applicant has been involved in the perpetration of family violence, within the meaning of paragraph 8.2(2)(b) of the Direction.
3. As was discussed earlier in these reasons, the Tribunal finds the applicant's conduct on 3 January 2020 to be very serious. The Tribunal considers that between 2016 and 2020 the applicant's family violence increased in seriousness, from disagreements with AA which caused her to be fearful, to a violent physical assault on AA and her partner in the presence of their child. However, on the evidence before it, the Tribunal does not consider that the applicant's family violence was frequent or repeated and considers the conduct prior to 2020 to be much less serious than the conduct in 2020. [104]
4. On the basis of the evidence discussed at [‎31] and [‎51] above, the Tribunal finds that the applicant has accepted responsibility for his family violence related conduct and has some understanding of the impact of his[105]haviour on AA and BB.105 The Tribunal finds that the applicant has taken steps to address the factors which contributed to his conduct, including by completing the courses referred to at [‎53] and [‎81] above, and[106] engaging in regular and ongoing counselling.106 The Tribunal accepts that these factors weigh in the applicant's favour when assessing the seriousness of the applicant's family violence.
5. As noted above, the Tribunal accepts on the evidence that the applicant offended since being made aware of the consequences of further offending on his migration status in 2018. However, the respondent accepts, and the Tribunal finds, that paragraph 8.2(3)(d) of the Direction does not apply to the applicant's circumstances, as the 2018 warning letter did not explicitly refer to the consequences of further acts of family violence (rather than further offending generally).
6. Taking the above factors into consideration, and balancing the seriousness of the applicant's family violence with the rehabilitation achieved by the applicant at the time of this decision, the Tribunal considers the family violence committed by the applicant weighs significantly in favour of refusing to grant the visa.

Strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia

1. The Tribunal must also consider the strength, nature and duration of the applicant's ties to Australia as set out in paragraph 8.3 of the Direction. Paragraph 8.3(1) requires considering any impact of the decision on the non-citizen's immediate family members in Australia, where those family members are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely.
2. Paragraph 8.3(2) of the Direction states that 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 how long the non-citizen has resided in Australia, including whether the non-citizen arrived as a young child, whether the non-citizen began offending, the time the non-citizen has spent contributing positively to the Australian community, and the strength, duration and nature of any family and social links with Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely.
3. The applicant has lived in Australia for approximately 14 years, having arrived in 2012 as a 22-year-old. His current partner, his daughter, and 3 of his siblings are all Australian citizens.[107] The applicant has undertaken vocational training in Australia, and prior to his imprisonment and detention worked in transport and security. He has provided evidence of a number of family and social links with Australian citizens, permanent residents and/or the right to remain in Australia indefinitely.
4. During the hearing, the Tribunal heard oral evidence from the applicant and his witnesses about the strength, nature and duration of the applicant's ties to Australia. The Tribunal has also considered the information in the applicant and his witnesses' written statements,[108] his academic and work references, and the letters and statements provided in support of the applicant from the people who are either Australian citizens or have the right to remain in Australia indefinitely.
5. N gave evidence that if the applicant were not granted a visa, the emotional impact on their family would be 'devastating'.[109]
6. SS gave evidence that she and the applicant have long term goals together, including saving to travel together, buy a home and eventually to have a family. SS has struggled with the difficulties associated with having a relationship with a person in detention, which has affected her psychologically and emotionally, but has persevered with the relationship because she loved the applicant and hoped to be with him eventually. SS stated that if the applicant were removed from Australia, her hope of having a future or life with him would be gone as her life was here in Australia.
7. K gave evidence that she would be extremely saddened if the applicant was removed from Australia.
8. The applicant's representative submits that the applicant has built the foundations of his life in Australia and views this country as his permanent home. His ties to Australia are reinforced by a broad and deeply rooted support network that spans family, his partner and long-term friends, which provides the applicant with belonging, identity, cultural connection, emotional support and a sense of home. The strength, nature and duration of the applicant's ties place him firmly within the category of non-citizens for whom the Direction recognises a higher degree of tolerance, given that Australia is the only community to which he is genuinely connected.[110]
9. The respondent's representative accepts that the applicant's long residence in Australia weighs in his favour, but submits that he cannot be said to have spent his formative years here as he arrived in the country as a 22-year-old. The respondent accepts that the applicant's family, partner and close personal friends would suffer emotional hardship in the event of an adverse decision in these proceedings, and that the applicant's past employment in Australia must carry some weight in his favour, but submits that the weight to be placed on these matters is limited in circumstances where (a) it is not apparent that the applicant's family are reliant on him for practical support; and (b) there is little corroborative evidence of the nature and extent of the applicant's positive contributions to the Australian community.[111]
10. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant's current partner SS will be significantly impacted if it were to decide to refuse the visa. While the Tribunal has no direct evidence of the potential impact the applicant's removal from Australia may have on BB, it accepts that she may be negatively affected if the opportunity to re-establish a relationship with her father were permanently severed. The Tribunal also accepts that his sister N will be negatively impacted if the visa was refused, but does not accept that his two other Australian citizen siblings will be impacted, given that the applicant has not claimed to have any ongoing relationship with them.[112]
11. While the applicant did not arrive in Australia as a young child,[113] the Tribunal accepts that he has developed very strong ties over the more than 13 years he has resided in Australia, including his relationships with his sister, partner and daughter, his contributions to Australia through his past employment as a security guard and truck driver,[114] and his friendships with Australian citizens such as AS, K and their families.[115] The Tribunal also accepts that the applicant's offending did not commence soon after his arrival in Australia.[116] Overall, the Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs significantly against refusing to grant the visa.

Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision

1. Paragraph 8.4 of the Direction requires the Tribunal to determine whether cancellation or refusal under s 501 of the Act, or non-revocation under s 501CA of the Act, is or is not in the best interests of children who are under 18 at the time the decision is expected to be made.
2. The applicant has identified 1 minor child in Australia whose interests would be affected by the decision, namely his daughter BB, who is currently 9 years old.[117]
3. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant is BB's parent, but notes the applicant's evidence that he has had no contact with BB since 2019, initially due to the operation of FVIOs and the need for the applicant to complete a men's behavioural change program in order to resume contact with BB, and subsequently because of his imprisonment and detention.[118]
4. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has completed some parenting courses,[119] intends to re-establish contact with BB through lawful court and mediation processes and is willing to undertake further parenting programs and counselling to enable this to occur,[120] including by completing the men's behaviour change program. The Tribunal accepts that the courses he has completed, coupled with the ongoing counselling he is undertaking, may enhance the possibility that the applicant will play a positive parental role and reduce the risk of exposing BB to any family violence, abuse or neglect in the future.[121] However, the Tribunal also notes that BB's exposure to the applicant's past family violence may have had a negative impact on her, and mitigates the extent to which the applicant is likely to play a positive role in her life in the future.[122]
5. The Tribunal accepts that AA currently fulfils a parental role for BB.[123] The Tribunal finds that the potential impact of separation on BB would only be slight, as the applicant has had no direct contact with her for over 6 years, and has the capacity to maintain contact with her electronically if he were not permitted to remain in Australia.[124]
6. The Tribunal considers that this primary consideration weighs slightly against refusing to grant the visa.

1. Paragraph 8.5(1) of the Direction states that the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. The Direction goes on to state that 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 would not allow them to enter or remain in Australia.
2. Paragraph 8.5(2) directs that 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. This includes an expectation that a visa should be cancelled if they raise serious character concerns because of acts of family violence, crimes of a violent nature or serious crimes against women.[125]
3. Paragraph 8.5(3) of the Direction further confirms that the stated expectations apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
4. The expectations of the Australian community as a whole are to be considered. The Direction directs that 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: paragraph 8.5(4) of the Direction. It is not for the Tribunal itself to determine such expectations.[126] A decision-maker can take into account the personal circumstances of an individual insofar as they are relevant to another primary consideration or one of the other considerations and adjust the relative weight to be given to each of the considerations accordingly.[127]
5. In RCLN the Federal Court of Australia held that the assessment of community circumstances is not a matter of evidence and does not turn on the personal circumstances of the individual non-citizen. The Court held that a decision-maker can take into account the personal circumstances of an individual insofar as they are relevant to another primary consideration or one of the other considerations and adjust the relative weight to be given to each of the considerations accordingly.[128]
6. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that the applicant has failed to obey laws while in Australia, as his 2022 convictions related to acts of family violence, violent crimes and serious crimes against women.[129] The Tribunal finds that the applicant has engaged in serious conduct in breach of the Australian community's expectations.
7. The Tribunal considers the expectations of the Australian community weighs significantly in favour of refusing to grant the visa.

1. The Tribunal is required to consider the legal consequences of a decision on a non-citizen pursuant to paragraph 9.1 of the Direction. This includes having regard to Australia's

non-refoulement obligations in respect of unlawful non-citizens, where relevant. 2. Generally, if a visa is cancelled, its former holder becomes an unlawful non-citizen immediately after cancellation. Under s 189 of the Act, the applicant must be detained and removed as soon as reasonably practicable under s 198.[130] However, s 197C of the Act provides that s 198 does not require or authorise a person's removal to a country if a 'protection finding' has been made for them. The respondent submits, and the Tribunal finds, that a delegate made a 'protection finding' in respect of the applicant when he was granted a TPV.[131] As a consequence s 198 does not require or authorise the applicant's removal to Iran: s 197C(3).[132] However, due to the applicant's mode of arrival, the applicant is barred from making any valid application for a further visa whilst in Australia without the intervention of the Minister: s 46A of the Act. 3. The applicant's representative submits that two sets of legal consequences will flow from a decision to refuse to grant the applicant the visa. * First, the applicant will be removed to a third country. In the present case, the applicant is likely to be removed to Nauru pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the Australian and Nauruan Governments, establishing third-country reception arrangements under which Nauru agreed to provide 'long-term settlement visas' for up to 100 people in return for Australian funding commitments. Mr McLean submits that this outcome is a probable consequence of the decision, as Nauru has granted at least four Long Term Stay visas (LTSVs) pursuant to this agreement and at least one LTSV holder has already been removed from Australia to Nauru,[133] but notes that the arrangement is currently being challenged in the High Court, with the Court reserving its judgment.[134]

• Secondly, unless and until a third country agrees to receive the applicant, the applicant would be granted a Bridging R visa (BVR) with various conditions.[135]

1. It is submitted that the above legal consequences would give rise to the following outcomes:
   • if the applicant is granted a BVR, he would be subject to a number of onerous and restrictive conditions, the breach of which may also result in criminal penalties;[136]

• the applicant will be subject to ongoing removal processes as a 'removal pathway non-citizen'. Information about the applicant may be shared with a third country, exposing him to serious risk, and there are no protections against that third country refouling the applicant to Iran, detaining him indefinitely or otherwise unlawfully, or otherwise persecuting him.[137]

• If the applicant is granted an LTSV and removed to Nauru pursuant to a third country reception arrangement, the conditions in Nauru are very likely to cause him serious harm amounting to either persecution or harm amounting to a violation of his rights under the Refugee Convention, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and/or the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT).[138] Those conditions include:
  • Nauru's relative poverty and the consequent lack of available employment and accommodation;[139]
  • Nauru's inadequate healthcare and social stigma towards mental illness, and the consequent lack of available treatment for the applicant's physical and mental health conditions;[140]
  • the violent targeting and discrimination experienced by transferees in Nauru;[141]
  • practices in Nauru that would lead to the possibility of the applicant's direct or constructive refoulement from Nauru to Iran;[142]
  • the restrictions on the applicant's freedom of movement as an LTSV holder;[143]
  • the applicant's permanent separation from his daughter, partner, mother and siblings;[144] and
  • restrictions on the applicant's ability to practise his religion in Nauru, as Islam is not a registered religion and there are no mosques in the country.[145]

• The applicant may suffer wrongs at the hands of the Australian Government or its partners or agents as a part of the removal process, for which the Government has legislated it will not be liable.[146]

1. The applicant's representative has referred to a range of news articles and reports to corroborate his claim that the conditions in Nauru are very likely to cause harm to the applicant and/or result in his constructive refoulement to Iran. Mr McLean acknowledges that some of that material is dated, but submits that the Tribunal should not discount the applicant's concerns on that basis in circumstances where independent, contemporaneous reporting of the current conditions in Nauru has been limited. He cites the 2025-2026 UNHCR Universal Periodic Review compilation, in which the UNHCR reported that it has been unable to visit Nauru since the resumption of transfers in 2023, and that its request to access refugees and asylum seekers in Nauru had been pending since April 2024.[147]
2. The respondent's lawyer submits that the applicant has been approved for the purposes of the Third Country Removal Arrangement cohort, meaning that if the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision an application for an LTSV will be made on the applicant's behalf to facilitate his re-settlement in Nauru. Accordingly, the respondent submits that the legal consequences of the Tribunal affirming the refusal decision would be that the applicant would remain in detention for a defined period while an application for an LTSV is made and processed. The applicant would then be liable to removal to Nauru. [148]
3. The respondent accepts that the applicant would experience practical hardship associated with his removal to a country that is not familiar to him and where he has no connection or family support, which would be exacerbated by his physical and mental health conditions.[149] However, the respondent submits that there is insufficient evidence to satisfy the Tribunal that this particular applicant would be subjected to 'ongoing fear from authorities,' or would be at a real risk of torture, degrading treatment or violence in Nauru in circumstances where:
   • the applicant will be entitled to freedom of movement and permitted to seek employment or work pursuant to the Nauruan Constitution and Nauruan Immigration (Long Term Stay Visa) Regulations 2025 (Nauruan Regulations);
   • the Nauruan Regulations also state that the applicant will be provided with appropriate accommodation, reasonable living allowances and access to local transport, health services (including telehealth), welfare and education services;[150] and
   • the applicant may apply for protection which will be assessed according to international law, noting that Nauru is a signatory to the Refugee Convention, ICCPR and CAT, and will not be removed from Nauru where there is a risk of deprivation of life, the death penalty, cruel inhuman or degrading treatment, punishment or persecution, chain refoulement, being imposed with punitive conditions in support of a community safety, or his general safety being denied by any state. Any suggestion to the contrary ought to be rejected, given the express inclusion of these protections in the Nauruan Constitution and Regulations.[151]
4. The respondent submits that the applicant's contentions about constructive refoulement as a direct and immediate legal consequence of its decision is 'speculative' in circumstances where the applicant has not requested voluntary removal.[152]

1. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant's protection finding means that he cannot be removed to Iran, because s 198 of the Act no longer requires nor authorises this.
2. The Tribunal finds on the basis of the submissions and evidence before it that the following legal consequences may follow from a decision to refuse the visa:
   • pursuant to the MoU with Nauru, the respondent will make an application for an LTSV on the applicant's behalf. It remains uncertain, however, when Nauru will decide the LTSV application or whether it will be approved, or whether the applicant's removal pursuant to the MoU will be lawful following the outcome in TXCM.
   • if an LTSV is granted by Nauru, then s 198 requires the applicant to be removed there as soon as reasonably practicable. If the LTSV is not approved, the executive government may permit the applicant to reside in Australia under a BVR with conditions. It remains uncertain what conditions would be applied under a BVR, but the Tribunal accepts that these can be restrictive, have a compliance burden, and possible prosecution if breached.
3. These legal consequences were recently considered by Senior Member Nikolic in the decision of VSYV and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Migration) [2026] ARTA 62 (16 January 2026). In that case, SM Nikolic did not accept that the applicant's removal to Nauru was a probable consequence of the Tribunal's decision, finding that:

Much of what may occur to the Applicant turns on the irresoluble course of future events[153] and is not a direct or immediate consequence of the Tribunal's decision. [154] In DOB18[155], Griffiths J reflected favourably on Ali[156] and cautioned against speculating about future events:

... Justice Flick's reasoning in Ali was adopted and applied by Logan J in Greene at [19] and by Farrell J in Turay at [40] ... Contrary to the applicant's submissions, I do not consider that the reasoning in this trio of cases is plainly wrong. Indeed, I consider that it is plainly correct. In my respectful view, it properly recognises the importance of the different stages of decision-making under the Act and the need to avoid speculation as to what might or might not occur in future decision-making ...

Irrespective of how the Applicant's future may unfold, the Tribunal accepts an adverse decision would be distressing for him and others he may be close to. This has the potential to adversely affect his mental health.

1. Whilst the Tribunal agrees that the above authorities do not compel it to consider a 'probable or arguable'[157] consequence of its decision, it does not understand those authorities to preclude it from considering those probable or arguable consequences. The Tribunal has assessed the legal consequences on the basis of the state of affairs as it stands at the time of its decision,[158] which relevantly includes the existence of the MoU between the Australian and Nauruan government establishing third-country resettlement arrangements, the applicant's current detention, and the respondent's intention to apply for a Nauruan LTSV for the applicant if the Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
2. In this case, on the evidence before it at the time of its decision, the Tribunal accepts that if it were to refuse to grant the applicant the visa the probable legal consequences of its decision are as follows:
   • the applicant would either remain in immigration detention or in the community as the holder of a BVR while an application for a Nauruan LTSV is made on his behalf pursuant to the Australian Government's MoU with Nauru; and
   • if the LTSV were granted, the applicant would be removed to Nauru as soon as is practicable.
3. As a general proposition the Tribunal accepts that the applicant may encounter onerous conditions in Nauru. However, it has not made findings about whether the applicant will experience the specific conditions identified in the applicant's submissions, as this would require speculation as to what might or might not occur as a result of future decisions.[159].

1. The psychological evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the applicant's mental health would substantially deteriorate if he were unable to remain in Australia or his current circumstances (namely his ongoing detention and/or the persistent uncertainty regarding his future) were to continue without resolution.[160] For these reasons, the Tribunal gives this consideration significant weight against refusing to grant the visa.

1. Paragraph 9.2(1) of the Direction provides that decision-makers must consider the extent of any impediments that the non-citizen may face if removed from Australia to their home country, which in the applicant's case is Iran. The Direction states in doing so decision- makers should take 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. Paragraph 9.2 is expressed in hypothetical terms that are not tied to the likelihood or otherwise of the non-citizen being removed to their home country - it does not expressly state that the Tribunal is to calibrate the weight to be given to this "other consideration" depending on the likelihood or otherwise of removal taking place.[161]
2. The applicant's representative submits that notwithstanding the protection finding, the Tribunal ought to consider the extent of the impediments the applicant would face if he was removed to Iran, on the basis that the onerous conditions the applicant will experience if the visa is refused may lead to his constructive removal to Iran. If that occurred, the applicant's chronic mental health conditions, trauma history, and past persecution in Iran due to his Ahwazi identity and activism would present significant impediments to establishing himself or maintaining basic living standards in Iran.[162]
3. The respondent submits that this consideration is only enlivened where there is a prospect of the applicant being removed to his home country. In this case, the applicant will not be removed to Iran because he is the subject of a 'protection finding', the weight of the applicant's evidence tends against any speculative assertion that he will elect voluntary removal to Iran, and the impediments the applicant may face on removal to Nauru are taken into account under the 'legal consequences of decision' consideration.[163]
4. The Tribunal does not interpret paragraph 9.2 of the Direction as precluding it from considering the extent of any impediments that the applicant may face if removed from Australia to Iran in circumstances where a protection finding has been made and the applicant has not requested removal.[164] While the applicant has not explicitly stated that he intended to return to Iran if he were not granted the visa, his representative's submissions, coupled with the Ferrari report, leave open the possibility that his mental health may deteriorate if the visa were refused, to a point that he feels compelled to return to Iran. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds on the evidence before it that there is a realistic possibility that the applicant may return to his home country despite a protection finding.[165]
5. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant lived in Iran from birth until he was 22 years old, and accordingly finds there are no substantial language or cultural barriers as an impediment if removed. Nor is there any evidence that the applicant would face any impediments in re-establishing himself in Iran based on his age.
6. The applicant gave evidence that his parents and 1 of his siblings currently reside in Iran, but that he has no relationship with his sibling, and that his parents intended to return to Iran only briefly and hold visas enabling them to return to Australia. Accordingly, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant would have limited social and economic support if he returned to Iran.
7. The Tribunal accepts that if the applicant returned to Iran the circumstances which underpinned his protection finding, coupled with his established physical and psychological health issues, would present significant impediments to him establishing himself or maintaining basic living standards in Iran. The Tribunal gives this consideration significant weight against refusing to grant the visa.

1. The Direction indicates that this factor is generally only given weight where the decision would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project or important service in Australia. Neither party has submitted that there are Australian business interests affected by the decision.[166] Accordingly, the Tribunal finds this consideration carries neutral weight.

1. The Tribunal has considered the applicant's circumstances in relation to the various considerations set out in the Direction. It must now carry out the evaluative exercise of weighing up the factors to determine whether to exercise the discretion under s 501(1) of the Act to refuse to grant the applicant's visa. As noted by the Full Court of the Federal Court in CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs[167] (in the context of the analogous exercise of discretion under s 501CA(4) of the Act):

The balancing process is directed to determining whether there is "another reason" why the visa cancellation should be revoked. It requires an identification of the matters that may constitute "another reason" and bringing to bear the considerations that the Direction requires the Tribunal to take into account where relevant in determining whether or not the Tribunal is satisfied that there is another reason (or reasons) to revoke the visa cancellation. Some of the considerations set out in the Direction, where relevant, may weigh in favour of revocation, and so may constitute "another reason" capable of supporting the state of satisfaction required in order for revocation under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) to occur. But whether they do qualify as a reason of that kind will need to be assessed in the context of different considerations set out in the Direction which may weigh against revocation, where relevant. That is why it is appropriate to describe it as a process of weighing and balancing. But to go beyond that to treat the Direction as mandating some sort of calculation of the net weight to be given to the considerations on each side is to lose sight of the ultimately evaluative nature of the statutory task.

2. The Tribunal made the following findings concerning the relevant primary considerations in the Direction, other considerations being neutral:

(a) The protection of the Australian community against criminal and other serious conduct weighs significantly in favour of refusal. > > (b) The family violence committed by the non-citizen weighs significantly in favour of refusal. > > (c) The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia weighs significantly against refusal. > > (d) The best interests of minor children weighs slightly against refusal. > > (e) The expectations of the Australian community weighs significantly in favour of refusal.

3. The Tribunal made the following findings about the only relevant other considerations in the Direction:

(f) The legal consequences of the decision weighs significantly against refusal. > > (g) The extent of impediments if removed weighs significantly against refusal.

4. In this case there are primary considerations weighing both for and against the visa refusal, and 'other' considerations weighing against refusal. The considerations are finely balanced.
5. Section 7 of the Direction sets out the way in which the relevant considerations are to be taken into account and weighed. The Tribunal is required to bring together the relevant considerations in this matter and consider, as part of a single evaluation, their relative significance in terms of whether it is ultimately satisfied that the visa ought to be refused. The primary consideration of the protection of the Australian community is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations, and the primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations.[168]
6. In FHHM v Minister for Immigration (FHHM),[169] the Full Court considered s 8.4 of Ministerial Direction 79, which also stated that primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than other considerations. O'Callaghan and Colvin JJ, Derrington J agreeing, referred to remarks made by Colvin J in Suleiman v Minister for Immigration,[170] stating (at [34]) that 'particular circumstances may pertain that may justify greater weight being given to one or more of the other considerations than one or more of the primary considerations'. Applying the court's reasoning in FHHM, the Tribunal considers that:
   • the use of the word 'generally' in paragraphs 7(1) and 7(2) of the Direction indicates that the decision-maker is not bound to apply those paragraphs rigidly when conducting the weighing exercise; and
   • there may be circumstances which justify affording greater weight to one or more of the 'other' considerations than one or more of the primary considerations.
7. The Tribunal is also mindful of the human consequences of the exercise of its discretion and has given real consideration to the potentially devastating consequences an adverse decision may have on the applicant and his family members.[171]
8. In conducting the weighing exercise, the Tribunal has had regard to the significance the Direction places on the applicant's criminal conduct and family violence, as reflected in the principles that the inherent nature of certain conduct such as family violence is so serious, and the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated may be so serious, that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not refusing a visa.[172] In this case, the applicant has engaged in conduct which constitutes family violence, including very serious criminal offences which the Australian community would view very seriously. Balanced against this, the applicant has lived in Australia for approximately 14 years, has strong ties to Australia (including an Australian citizen partner, sibling and child), has undertaken significant and ongoing rehabilitation, has strong protective factors which substantially reduce his risk of recidivism, and has provided evidence to demonstrate that his visa refusal would significantly undo the work he has done to rehabilitate, lead to a deterioration in his mental health, and may permanently extinguish his relationship with his partner and his opportunity to reconnect with his child.
9. The Tribunal considers that in the circumstances of the present case, substantial weight should be afforded to the 'primary' considerations of the strength, nature and duration of ties and the best interests of minor children and the 'other' considerations of the legal consequences of its decision and extent of impediments if removed when weighing up all of the factors relevant to the exercise of its discretion.
10. Having weighed up these factors, the Tribunal is satisfied that it should not refuse to grant the applicant's permanent visa. That is not a decision which the Tribunal comes to lightly, given the seriousness of the 3 January 2020 incident, but it is satisfied that it is the correct decision in this case.
11. Having weighed up these factors, the Tribunal is satisfied the applicant's visa should not be refused.

1. The decision of the delegate of the respondent to refuse the applicant's application for a Resolution of Status (Subclass 851) visa is set aside and substituted with a decision not to refuse the grant of the visa under s 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

M Baras-Miller of the Australian Government Solicitor

[2] Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (RSFIC) at [3].

[4] HB 133 [21], 464-465, 471. The applicant's parents returned to Iran in November 2025 for medical treatment, but have been unable to return to Australia due to the outbreak of war in the region.

[15] Nathanson v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 26; (2022) 276 CLR 80 at [7] (Kiefel CJ, Keane and Gleeson).

[16] Applicant's statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (ASFIC) at [9].

[19] The applicant's criminal history records that the applicant was found guilty of 2 charges of 'contravene family violence final intervention order' on 19 March 2020, for which no conviction was recorded. Pursuant to ss 85ZM, 85ZR(2) and 85ZS(1)(d) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) and s 8 of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), the Tribunal must not take into account any findings of guilt made against the applicant or the fact he had been charged with the offences. Consistently with the decisions of WKBF v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 465, Thornton v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] HCA 17 and Lesianawai v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 6, the Tribunal has not had regard to those offences.

[21] This name is a pseudonym used for AA in the Court's sentencing remarks.

[22] This name is a pseudonym used in the Court's sentencing remarks.

[23] This name is a pseudonym used in the Court's sentencing remarks.

[27] Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a)(iii) of the Direction.

[28] Paragraph 4.1(1) of the Direction.

[37] [2024] AATA 1782 (Cruckshank).

[41] Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a)(i)-(iii) of the Direction.

[43] Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(d) of the Direction.

[44] Paragraphs 8.1.1(1)(e)-(f) of the Direction.

[45] Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(h) of the Direction.

[47] Paragraphs 8.1.1(1)(g) of the Direction.

[48] Paragraphs 8.1.1(1)(i) of the Direction.

[49] Tanielu v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 673; (2014) 225 FCR 424 at [104] (Mortimer J), Hambledon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 7 at [43] (Kenny J).

[50] HB 144-145, [110]-[112], [115].

[59] HB 115-130, 252-253, 229-230 [11]-[16].

[66] HB 238-239 [4]-[5], 240 [14].

[74] ASFIC at [26]-[29], Applicant's reply at [4].

[87] Paragraph 8.1.2(2)(a) of the Direction.

[92] The Tribunal accepts that Ms Ferrari was aware that the applicant was subject to a FVIO at the time of the 3 January 2020 incident, as this was mentioned in the sentencing remarks included in the materials provided to Ms Ferrari. See HB 48 [2], HB 133 [18c].

[93] Paragraph 8.1.2(2)(b) of the Direction.

[94] Paragraph 8.1.2(1) of the Direction.

[98] At the hearing, the applicant clarified that he meant 2018, not 2017.

[99] At the hearing, the applicant clarified that his last contact with his daughter was in 2019.

[102] ASFIC at [39]-[41], Applicant's reply at [7].

[104] Paragraph 8.2(3)(1)-(b) of the Direction

[105] Paragraph 8.2(3)(c)(i)-(ii) of the Direction.

[106] Paragraph 8.2(3)(c)(iii) of the Direction.

[107] At the hearing the applicant's lawyer accepted that the applicant's parents hold Australian temporary visas and accordingly are not Australian citizens, permanent residents and/or have the right to remain in Australia indefinitely.

[108] HB 93-100, 107, 109, 114, 228-245, 471.

[112] Paragraph 8.3(1) of the Direction.

[113] Paragraph 8.3(2)(a) of the Direction.

[114] HB 231 [23]; Paragraph 8.3(2)(a)(ii) of the Direction.

[115] Paragraph 8.3(2)(b) of the Direction.

[116] Paragraph 8.3(2)(a)(i) of the Direction.

[118] HB 94-95 [9]-[10], 229 [7], ASFIC at [51], Paragraph 8.4(a) of the Direction.

[121] Paragraphs 8.4(4)(b)-(c), (g) of the Direction.

[122] Paragraphs 8.4(4)(b)-(c), (g)-(h) of the Direction.

[123] Paragraph 8.4(4)(e) of the Direction.

[124] Paragraphs 8.4(4)(d) of the Direction.

[126] FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185 at [66]- [67] (Charlesworth J), [91], [101] and [104] (Stewart J).

[127] FYBR at [77] (Charlesworth J): RCLN v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 876 (RCLN) at [56] (Horan J). Horan J's judgment was upheld on appeal in RCLN v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FCAFC 113.

[129] Paragraph 8.5(2)(a) of the Direction.

[130] Paragraph 9.1(1) of the Direction.

[132] Also see paragraph 9.1.1(2) of the Direction.

[133] ASFIC at [76]-[77], Maani Truu, 'Fourth NZYQ member issued Nauruan visa as Labor steams ahead with deportation plan', ABC News (25 September 2025), available at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-09-25/fourth-nauruan-visa-issued-to-nzyq/105817222; Maani Truu, 'First NZYQ cohort member deported to Nauru under opaque deal potentially worth billions', ABC News (28 October 2025), available at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-10-28/first-nzyq-member-deported-to-nauru/105919846

[134] TXCM v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Anor (S146/2025) (TXCM).

[136] ASFIC at [69]. At the hearing, the applicant acknowledged that the potential conditions and penalties did not include those imposed by s 76C and 76D of the Act, which were recently found to be unconstitutional by the High Court. See EGH19 v Commonwealth of Australia [2026] HCA 7.

[137] ASFIC at [71]- [72], [82].

[139] ASFIC at [81], [84], [109]; Applicant's reply at [15].

[140] ASFIC at [85]-[88], [92]-[94], [104]-[109]; Applicant's reply at [15], [18].

[141] ASFIC at [87]-[88], [95]-[103].

[142] ASFIC at [82], [88], [91], [120]-[124].

[145] ASFIC at [126]-[131] ; Applicant's reply at [17].

[147] Applicant's reply at [18], United Nations Human Rights Council, Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: Nauru (30 October 2025), A/HRC/WG.6/51/NRU/2 at [55].

[150] Clause 3 of Schedule 3 to the Nauruan Regulations.

[153] BFMV v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCAFC 199.

[154] BNGP v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 111; (2023) 298 FCR 609, [101] (Perry J, with Bromwich and Kennett JJ agreeing) (BNGP).

[155] DOB18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1523 at [35] (DOB18).

[156] Ali v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 650, at [28] and [33].

[158] Nathanson v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 26; (2022) 276 CLR 80 at [7] (Kiefel CJ, Keane and Gleeson).

[161] Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v RXJT [2026] FCA 33 (RXJT) at [20].

[162] ASFIC at [134], [138]; Applicant's reply at [21].

[164] RXJT at [20], [50]-[51].

[166] ASFIC at [140], RSFIC at [67].

[167] CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 138.

[168] Paragraphs 7(1) and 7(2) of the Direction. Emphasis added.

[169] [2022] FCAFC 19.

[170] [2018] FCA 594 at [23].

[171] Hands v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) 267 FCR 628 at [3].

[172] Paragraph 5.2(7)-(8) of the Direction.