2. On 19 September 2009, the Applicant acknowledged receipt of the 2009 formal warning: HB165.

1. On 1 July 2014, the Applicant was convicted, in the Rockingham Magistrates Court, of the following offences:
   • 'No authority to drive - suspended';
   • 'Possession of a prohibited drug with intent to sell or supply (Methylamphetamine)'; and
   • 'Possession of prohibited drugs with intent to sell or supply (Cannabis)',

and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment, for the above offences, to be served concurrently over 12 months: HB71.

1. On 5 January 2015, the Applicant's visa was mandatorily cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act on the basis that the Applicant had a 'substantial criminal record' because of the 1 July 2014 conviction: HB154 - HB155.
2. By letter dated 25 February 2015, a delegate of the Minister notified the Applicant that the power under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act, to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act was enlivened, and the cancellation decision dated 5 January 2015 was revoked (2015 Revocation Decision): HB157 - HB158. The 2015 Revocation Decision contains the following 'warning':

Please note: this decision does not mean that your case cannot be reconsidered again on character grounds in the event of further criminal offending by you. In addition, the decision maker added the following warning to you: > > Ms Gordon-Stables needs to be aware that the delegate has carefully considered whether to revoke her mandatory cancellation and noting her previous warning in 2009 her case was very finely balanced. While in this instance the delegate has decided to revoke her cancellation and reinstate her visa, if Ms Gordon-Stables wishes to ensure her visa is not cancelled in the future it is in her best interests not to reoffend: HB157.

1. On 24 March 2017, the Applicant was convicted of 'No Authority to Drive - Suspended' and received a sentence of 8 months imprisonment: HB70.
2. On 12 April 2017, the Applicant's visa was mandatorily cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act on the basis that she had a 'substantial criminal record' because of the 1 July 2014 convictions (see [7] above) and the 24 March 2017 driving offence: HB146 - HB147.
3. On 31 May 2017, a delegate of the Minister found that the power under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act, to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act was enlivened, and revoked the cancellation decision dated 12 April 2017 (2017 Revocation Decision): HB151 - HB152. The 2017 Revocation Decision contains the following 'warning':

Please note: this decision does not mean that your case cannot be reconsidered again on character grounds in the event of further criminal offending by you: HB151.

1. On 21 January 2022, the District Court of Western Australia convicted the Applicant of the following ten offences, for which she received a total effective sentence of six years imprisonment:
   • one count of 'Possess a prohibited drug (Methylamphetamine)', and fined $500;
   • six counts of 'Offer to sell/supply a prohibited drug to another (Methylamphetamine)', and sentenced to 2 years and 9 months' imprisonment (cumulative);
   • one count of 'Attempt to possess prohibited drugs with intent to sell or supply', and sentenced to 9 months' imprisonment (concurrent); and
   • two counts of 'Possession of prohibited drug with intent to sell or supply (Methylamphetamine)', and sentenced to 4 years and 8 months' imprisonment (concurrent) (Index Offending): HB70 and HB92.
2. On 28 April 2023, the Applicant's visa was mandatorily cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act on the basis the Applicant had a 'substantial criminal record' because of the Index Offending: HB139 - HB144.
3. On 1 May 2023, the Applicant made representations to have the cancellation revoked under s 501CA of the Migration Act: HB169 - HB175.
4. On 2 August 2024, the Applicant was convicted, whilst incarcerated, of 'Aggravated home burglary and commit' and sentenced to four years' imprisonment: HB70.
5. On 1 August 2025, a delegate of the Minister found that the power under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act, to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act was not enlivened, and notified the Applicant of their decision not to revoke the cancellation of her visa (Non-revocation Decision): HB43 - HB44.
6. On 6 August 2025, the Applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the Non-revocation Decision: HB38 - HB42.

1. The Applicant's criminal history is set out in 'Annexure A' attached (Annexure A).
2. As stated above, the Applicant has:

(a) committed 73 offences in Australia; and > > (b) been sentenced to terms of imprisonment in 2009, 2013, 2014, 2017, 2022, and 2024 in Australia,

over a 32-year period (from 1992 to 2024): Annexure A and HB69 - HB72.

1. Notably, the Applicant's offending in Australia over a 32-year period (from 1992 to 2024), includes the following:
   • Numerous traffic offences between 1992 and 2019, including 'No motor drivers licence', 'Careless driving', 'No authority to drive - suspended', 'Driving under the influence', 'Exceed speed limit in a speed zone' and 'False name (Driver)';
   • 'Possess a prohibited drug (Amphetamine)', 'Possess a prohibited drug (Cannabis)' and 'Possession of prohibited drugs with intent to sell or supply' (on 22 July 2008);
   • 'Possession of prohibited drug with intent to sell or supply (MDMA)' and 'Possession of prohibited drug with intent to sell or supply (Methylamphetamine)' (on 13 March 2009);
   • 'Possess a prohibited drug' (Cannabis and/or Methamphetamine) (on 7 April 2009, 1 July 2014, 24 October 2016, 27 October 2017 and 28 January 2022);
   • 'Stealing' (on 22 July 2008);
   • 'Carried (possessed) an article with intent to cause fear to someone', 'Possessed a controlled weapon' and 'Possessed a prohibited weapon' (on 1 July 2014); and
   • 'Aggravated home burglary and commit' (on 2 August 2024): Annexure A.

1. The Applicant was first sentenced to a term of imprisonment, by the District Court of Western Australia, on 13 March 2009, for:
   • one count of 'Possession of a prohibited drug with intent to sell or supply (MDMA)' (12 months' sentence); and
   • one count of 'Possession of a prohibited drug with intent to sell or supply (Methylamphetamine)' (18 months' sentence),

with the sentences to be served concurrently: HB72.

1. The circumstances of this offending are described by the sentencing judge, Martino DCJ, as follows:

In the early hours of Friday, 15 February last year police officers stopped a car that you were driving in the Rockingham area. They found that you had in your possession 29 MDA tablets weighing a total of 9.15 grams. Those tablets are the subject of count 1. > > They also found in your possession a total of 15.09 grams of methylamphetamine with percentage purity ranging from approximately 34 to 42 per cent. Those drugs are the subject of count 2...: HB129.

2. Martino DCJ noted that on the morning of the trial, the Applicant pleaded guilty to count 1, 'Possession of a prohibited drug with intent to sell or supply (MDMA)': HB129. However, in relation to count 2, 'Possession of a prohibited drug with intent to sell or supply (Methylamphetamine)':

...At trial you admitted [to] the possession of the methamphetamine, but maintained that you did not intend to sell or supply the drugs. That explanation was obviously not accepted by the jury and the jury was no doubt influenced not only by the amount of the drug, but also other indicators of dealing, such as lists: HB129.

1. On 10 February 2013, the Applicant was pulled over by the police while driving a Ford vehicle on Safety Bay Road, Waikiki, and it was ascertained that she was not authorised to drive: HB117. On 10 June 2013, she was sentenced, in the Magistrates Court of Western Australia, with two counts of 'No authority to drive' and received sentences of imprisonment of 12 months and 8 months (concurrent), suspended for 15 months, until September 2014: HB71. At the hearing on 10 June 2013, the Applicant told Magistrate Temby that, on 10 February 2013, she went to visit a friend at their house in Safety Bay and was accompanied by her daughter and daughter's partner, who drove the vehicle there. The Applicant said that she drove the vehicle on the way home because her daughter and her partner had an argument, and her daughter's partner threatened to take the car. Further, the Applicant said that her daughter had been drinking and she had a spare key, so she drove the car home: HB119. The Applicant was subject to a suspended imprisonment order for her 10 February 2013 offending: HB102.

1. On 5 May 2013, the Applicant was caught driving a Holden vehicle in Port Kennedy while she was not authorised to drive: HB99.
2. On 4 October 2013, the police searched the Applicant's house in Port Kennedy, pursuant to a warrant, and found 2.91 grams of methylamphetamine, in three small clip seal bags, in her bedroom, which she claimed she shared with people in the house who provided a monetary exchange for the drug: HB98.
3. During the search, they also found 64.93 grams of cannabis in the Applicant's kitchen, along with an electric shock weapon, a can of pepper spray, and a serrated-edged knife which she claimed she used 'when someone comes to the door': HB65 - HB66.
4. On 1 July 2014, the Applicant was sentenced, in the Rockingham Magistrates Court, to various terms of immediate imprisonment for the 2013 offending to be served concurrently, over a total period of 12 months: HB71. The Applicant's suspended term of imprisonment, from 10 June 2013, was also reactivated on 1 July 2014: HB 114.

1. On 24 March 2017, the Applicant was sentenced, in the Rockingham Magistrates Court, to eight months' imprisonment for one count of 'No authority to drive - suspended' and, on 23 May 2017 the Applicant was sentenced, in the Rockingham Magistrates Court, to six months' imprisonment for 'No authority to drive - cancelled'.

1. The offending which led to the cancellation of the Applicant's visa, the Non-revocation Decision, and this review application was the Index Offending. The circumstances of the Index Offending are as follows: HB83 - HB93.
2. The Index Offending took place from 25 May 2019 to 24 July 2019.
3. As stated above, on 21 January 2022, the District Court of Western Australia convicted the Applicant of the following ten offences, for which she received a total effective sentence of six years' imprisonment:

(a) one count of 'Possess a prohibited drug (Methylamphetamine)', and fined $500; > > (b) six counts of 'Offer to sell/supply a prohibited drug to another (Methylamphetamine)', and sentenced to 2 years and 9 months' imprisonment (cumulative); > > (c) one count of 'Attempt to possess prohibited drugs with intent to sell or supply', and sentenced to 9 months' imprisonment (concurrent); and > > (d) two counts of 'Possession of prohibited drug with intent to sell or supply (Methylamphetamine)', and sentenced to 4 years and 8 months' imprisonment (concurrent): HB70 and HB92.

4. The Applicant pleaded guilty to seven of the ten offences, namely she pleaded guilty to:
   • six counts of 'Offer to sell/supply a prohibited drug to another (Methylamphetamine)'; and
   • one count of 'Attempt to possess prohibited drugs with intent to sell or supply'.
5. In the sentencing remarks, the sentencing judge, Lemonis DCJ, describes the 'key aspects' of these seven offences, to which the Applicant pled guilty, as follows:

In respect of count 3, you agreed to supply .5 grams of methylamphetamine to another person. In respect of count 4, you agreed to supply 1.75 grams of methylamphetamine to another person. In respect of count 5, you agreed to supply .5 grams of methylamphetamine to another person for 2, which I infer as a reference to $200. > > In respect of count 6, you agreed to supply 7 grams of methamphetamine to another person. In respect of count 7, you agreed to supply 1.75 grams of methylamphetamine to another person. In respect of count 8, you attempted to possess 8.2 grams of methylamphetamine for the sum of $1,800. The methylamphetamine was comprised of 6.6 grams with a purity of 80 per cent and a further 1.6 grams of unknown purity. > > The only reason that offence was no completed was because the police intercepted the person, a Mr Kirk, who was going to provide you with the drugs. And he was intercepted in the alleyway near to your home. > > In respect of count 9, you agreed to supply 14 grams of methylamphetamine to another person...: HB85.

6. However, the Applicant pleaded not guilty to the two counts 'Possession of prohibited drug with intent to sell or supply (Methylamphetamine)', for which she was found guilty after trial.
7. As noted by Lemonis DCJ, in his Honour's sentencing remarks, this offending occurred while the Applicant was sitting in the passenger seat of a car, which was stopped by police, who found 43.47 grams of methylamphetamine in a pouch in the glovebox: HB85. The police also found seven separate bags of methylamphetamine in the Applicant's handbag (1.09 grams in total), which she did not dispute possession of at the trial: HB86.

1. While incarcerated for the Index Offending, the Applicant was sentenced to an aggravated burglary offence on 2 August 2024, the circumstances of which are set out in the sentencing remarks, of the sentencing judge, Petrusa DCJ (HB74 - HB75), and are, in summary, as follows:
   • The offending relates to conduct that occurred in November 2021, involving the home and property of Kate Bain (Ms Bain). In 2021, Ms Bain was sentenced to immediate imprisonment and was taken to Melaleuca Women's Prison. Prior to being incarcerated, Ms Bain was living at a property, in Furnissdale, Western Australia, with her 17-year-old daughter and others, who continued to live at that house after Ms Bain's incarceration;
   • The Applicant was already in prison at that time and very shortly after Ms Bain's arrival, she became aware that Ms Bain owed a debt to another inmate, Jodie Wright (Ms Wright), who had the cell near her. The Applicant obtained information about Ms Bain's home and belongings from Ms Wright and on 6 September 2021, telephoned her co-offender, and ex-partner, Karamaina Anderson (Mr Anderson), and told him to go to Ms Bain's house and take her property in satisfaction of Ms Bain's debt to Ms Wright;
   • The Applicant provided Mr Anderson the address and layout of Ms Bain's house, information about the presence of others, the type of property he was likely to find and what he should take. Further, the Applicant encouraged Mr Anderson when he suggested that he use violence;
   • Mr Anderson agreed to commit the burglary, suggested he would use violence, and told the Applicant he would take others with him when he committed the burglary. Mr Anderson and the Applicant also discussed what would be done with the property once it was stolen;
   • On 7 September 2021, Mr Anderson told the Applicant he would be committing the offence that day. At 2am on 8 November 2021, two men wearing masks and hoodies broke into Ms Bain's house, smashed open the front door, leaving only the top part of the door intact. This woke Ms Bain's daughter, who went to investigate and was confronted by the two men, one of whom was holding a hammer;
   • The men demanded to know where Ms Bain was, saying she owed money, and that they were there to collect items in satisfaction of that debt. Ms Bain's daughter directed the men to Ms Bain's property and they put the property into bags. They took property to the car before returning to take more. In addition to Ms Bain's clothing, the men took some drill bits, a longboard, bow, and a wall lamp. As they drove off, a BB gun was fired at the house; and
   • Later that morning, Mr Anderson called the Applicant and said, 'the deed was done' and discussed what property was taken. On 29 March 2022, the police spoke to Mr Anderson, who admitted he had discussed a home burglary with the Applicant and that he had agreed to do it and told the Applicant he had done it: HB74 - HB75.
2. In sentencing, Petrusa DCJ told the Applicant that she was criminally responsible for the burglary because she 'counselled or procured its commission': HB75.

1. The Applicant is currently being held at the Boronia Pre Release Centre (a minimum security facility) and is eligible for parole on 1 August 2026: HB336 - HB337.

1. The issues for consideration by the Tribunal are:

(a) whether the Applicant passes the 'character test,' as defined in s 501(6) of the Migration Act; and if not, > > (b) whether there is 'another reason' why the Visa Cancellation Decision should be revoked under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act, having regard to the considerations prescribed by Direction No 110 - Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (Direction 110).

1. Section 501CA of the Migration Act relevantly provides:

(1) This section applies if the Minister makes a decision (the original decision) under subsection 501(3A) (person serving sentence of imprisonment) to cancel a visa that has been granted to a person. > > ... > > (4) The Minister may revoke the original decision if: > > (a) the person makes representations in accordance with the invitation; and > > (b) the Minister is satisfied: > > (i) that the person passes the character test (as defined by section 501); or > > (ii) that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked.

1. The 'character test' is defined in s 501(6) of the Migration Act. Relevantly, a person will not pass the character test if they have a 'substantial criminal record': s 501(6)(a) of the Migration Act.
2. The phrase 'substantial criminal record' is defined in s 501(7) of the Act and includes circumstances where a person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more: s 501(7)(c) of the Migration Act.
3. Pursuant to s 501(3A)(a)(i) and (b) of the Migration Act, the Minister must cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if the Minister is satisfied that the person does not pass the 'character test', because they have a 'substantial criminal record', as defined in s 501(7)(c) of the Migration Act, and is serving a sentence of imprisonment, on a full-time basis in a custodial institution, for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State, or a Territory. That is, failure of the 'character test,' in s 501(6) of the Migration Act, arises as a matter of law.[3]

1. When a visa is mandatorily cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act, the Minister must:

(a) give the person concerned written notice of the decision which sets out the original decision: s 501CA(3)(a)(i) of the Migration Act; > > (b) give the person concerned particulars of the relevant information: s 501CA(3)(a)(ii) of the Migration Act; and > > (c) invite the person to make representations to the Minister regarding the revocation of the original decision: s 501CA(3)(b) of the Migration Act.

2. Under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act, the Minister may revoke the original (visa cancellation) decision if:

(a) representations have been made by the applicant in accordance with an invitation to make such representations about revocation of the cancellation: s 501CA(4)(a) of the Act; and > > (b) the Minister is satisfied that: > > > (i) the person passes the 'character test' in s 501(6) of the Migration Act: s 501CA(4)(b)(i) of the Migration Act; or, if not, > > > > (ii) there is 'another reason' why the original decision should be revoked: s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act.

3. A decision under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act (i.e. to revoke the original decision) involves an assessment and evaluation of the factors for and against revoking the original decision.[4]
4. The Tribunal is required to undertake a 'weighing and balancing' exercise, weighing up the relevant considerations in Direction 110 and the Applicant's representations against one another to come to the correct or preferable decision.[5]
5. The Tribunal (decision-maker) must then ask itself whether it is satisfied that there is 'another reason' to revoke the visa cancellation.[6] In Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 27; (2022) 275 CLR 582 (Plaintiff M1/2021) at [22], the High Court described s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act as conferring 'a wide discretionary power' to revoke the mandatory cancellation if the decision-maker (here, the Tribunal on review of a delegate's decision) is satisfied there is 'another reason' why the cancellation should be revoked. In Plaintiff M1/2021, the majority held (at [22]) that the assessment of whether there is, in fact, 'another reason' is to be undertaken by reference to the representations made by the Applicant.[7]

1. A decision under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act, whether there is 'another reason' to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a visa, must be made in accordance with any written directions under the Migration Act: s 499(2A) of the Migration Act.
2. Relevantly, the Tribunal must comply with Direction 110 in considering a request for revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act, providing a legislative constraint on the Tribunal's process of reasoning.[8] However, as stated by the Full Court in Singh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 46; (2023) 296 FCR 582 at [23] and [81], the principles enunciated by Brennan J in Drake (No 2), and subsequent cases concerning the Tribunal's ability to depart from governmental policy, remain applicable.[9]

1. The eight 'Principles' listed in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110 provide the framework within which decision-makers should approach their task of deciding whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen's visa under s 501CA of the Migration Act.
2. The eight 'Principles' listed in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110 are as follows:

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 non­citizens 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 measurable 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-citizens' conduct, or 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 non-citizen does not pose a measurable risk of causing physical harm the Australian community.

1. Informed by the eight 'Principles' in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110, the Tribunal (decision-maker) must take into account the five 'primary considerations' in section 8 of Part 2 of Direction 110, in deciding whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a visa under s 501CA(4) of the Act.
2. The five 'primary considerations,' in section 8 of Part 2 of Direction 110, are:

(a) protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct: paragraph 8.1 of Direction 110; > > (b) whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence: paragraph 8.2 of Direction 110; > > (c) the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia: paragraph 8.3 of Direction 110; > > (d) the best interests of minor children in Australia: paragraph 8.4 of Direction 110; and > > (e) expectations of the Australian community: paragraph 8.5 of Direction 110.

1. Informed by the eight 'Principles' in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110, the Tribunal (decision-maker) must also take into account the three 'other considerations', in paragraph 9 of Part 2 of Direction 110, insofar as they are relevant.
2. The three 'other considerations,' in paragraph 9 of Part 2 of Direction 110, include, but are not limited to, the:

(a) legal consequences of the decision under s 501 or s 501CA of the Migration Act: paragraph 9.1 of Direction 110; > > (b) extent of impediments if removed: paragraph 9.2 of Direction 110; and > > (c) impact on Australian business interests: paragraph 9.3 of Direction 110.

1. Section 7 of Part 2 of Direction 110 provides:

(1) In applying the considerations (both primary and other), information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight.

(2) The primary consideration at 8.1....(protection of the Australian community) is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations. Otherwise, primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than other considerations.

(3) One or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.

(emphasis added)

1. On 28 April 2025, the Applicant was notified of the mandatory cancellation of her visa (for the third time), by hand, which is the method prescribed by reg 2.55(3)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Migration Regulations): HB139 - HB144. The Applicant was taken to have received the notice when it was handed to her: reg 2.55(5) of the Migration Regulations.
2. Regulation 2.52(2)(b) of the Migration Regulations prescribes that any representations seeking revocation of a mandatory visa cancellation must be made to the Minister within 28 days after the person is given notice of the cancellation. On 1 May 2023, the Applicant made representations seeking revocation of the Visa Cancellation Decision, being within the prescribed 28-day period: HB169 - HB175. Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant made representations to the Minister in accordance with the invitation, as required under s 501CA(4)(a) of the Migration Act.

1. It is not in dispute, and the Tribunal accepts based on the evidence before it, that the Applicant does not pass the 'character test', because of the operation of s 501(6)(a) of the Migration Act, as she has a 'substantial criminal record', as defined in s 501(7)(c) of the Migration Act.

1. It follows that the sole issue to be decided by the Tribunal is whether there is 'another reason' why the decision to mandatorily cancel the Applicant's visa should be revoked:

s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act. 2. This involves an evaluative process requiring the Tribunal to examine factors for and against revoking the cancellation, and an assessment and evaluation of those factors leading to the formation of a view as to whether the cancellation should be revoked.[10] 3. For the following reasons, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is 'another reason' why the decision to mandatorily cancel the Applicant's visa should be revoked. In reaching its decision, the Tribunal, informed by the eight 'Principles' in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110, has, as set out below, 'taken into account':

(a) the five 'primary considerations' (in section 8 of Part 2 to Direction 110); and > > (b) the three 'other considerations' (in section 9 of Part 2 to Direction 110).

FIRST PRIMARY CONSIDERATION: PROTECTION OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL OR OTHER SERIOUS CONDUCT (PARAGRAPH 8.1 OF DIRECTION 110)

Safety of the Australian community is the highest priority

1. In applying paragraph 8.1 of Direction 110, the Tribunal must be informed by the eight 'Principles' set out in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110 and outlined at [23] above.
2. Paragraph 8.1(1) of Direction 110 states:

When considering protection of the Australian community, decision-makers should keep in mind that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government. To that end, the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. In this respect, decision-makers should have particular regard to the principle that entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, will respect important institutions, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community. > > (emphasis added)

3. The safety of the Australian community as being the highest 'priority' is also stated as a 'priority' in the 'Principle' in paragraph 5.2(2) of Direction 110.
4. Direction 110 was made on 7 June 2024 and commenced on 21 June 2024. It replaced Direction 99 which did not contain the principle that 'the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government'. The safety of the Australian community as being the highest 'priority' of the Australian Government, and in the application of Direction 110 by decision-makers, is reflected in the media release, published on 7 June 2024 by the Minister, Hon Andrew Giles MP (who authored both Directions 99 and 110), announcing Direction 110 as follows:[11]

Today, I have signed Ministerial Direction 110, a new, revised Direction to strengthen the consideration of community safety in Australia's migration system. > > Since coming to office, the Government has refused and cancelled a large number of visas on character grounds in the interests of community safety. > > However, it is clear the AAT has made a number of decisions independently of Government that do not reflect the Government's intent or meet community expectations. > > Since the beginning of last week, I have cancelled 40 visas in the national interest. > > Today, we take the next step in strengthening our cancellation system to better reflect community expectations. > > Ministerial Direction 110 is guided by two key principles; the protection of the Australian community and common sense. > > This new revised Direction makes crystal clear that the Government expects the protection of the Australian community be given greater weight in visa decisions. > > .... > > The revised Direction makes it clear that the safety of the Australian community is the Government's highest priority - and includes this as a key principle of the decision-making framework. > > .... > > Ministerial Direction 110 is an important step in ensuring that our migration system works in our national interest, and visa decisions are in line with common sense and the safety of Australians. > > Community safety is and always will be our Government's highest priority. > > (emphasis added)

5. Accordingly, the phrase 'safety of the Australian community,' in the 'Principle' in paragraph 5.2(2) of Direction 110 and the first 'primary consideration' in paragraph 8.1(1) of Direction 110 (Protection of the Australian community) is directed at the 'risk' posed by a non-citizen to the safety of the Australian nation should they be granted a visa. It is not directed at the potential consequences for a segment of the Australian community (such as the non-citizen's family members) should the visa not be granted or restored. The Tribunal must assess whether a non-citizen's continued presence in Australia would 'be opposed to the safety and welfare of the nation.'[12]

1. Paragraph 8.1(2) of Direction 110 states that, when considering the Protection of the Australian community, decision-makers must consider the:

(a) nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's conduct to date: paragraph 8.1.1 of Direction 110; and > > (b) risk to the Australian community, should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct: paragraph 8.1.2 of Direction 110.

2. For the following reasons, the Tribunal considers that the first 'primary consideration' (Protection of the Australian community) weighs heavily against revocation.

Nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct to date (paragraph 8.1.1 of Direction 110)

1. Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a) of Direction 110 provides:

a) without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered very serious, the types of crimes or conduct described below are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian community: > > i. violent and/or sexual crimes; > > ii. crimes of a violent and/or sexual nature against women or children;

1. acts of family violence, regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed;

1. The fact that the Applicant's drug-related criminal offending/conduct does not specifically fall within the range of conduct that paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a) of Direction 110 states 'may' be considered 'very serious,' does not exclude it from being 'very serious', for the purpose of paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a) of Direction 110. This much is obvious from the use of the words 'without limiting the range of conduct' which appear at the commencement of paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a) of Direction 110. That is, conduct which may be considered as 'very serious', for the purpose of paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a) of Direction 110 is not exhaustive.
2. The Tribunal considers that the nature of the Applicant's offending/conduct to date is, overall, objectively 'very serious', for the purpose of paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a) of Direction 110. Relevantly, the nature of the Applicant's conduct, which includes 'violent' offending, is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations are insufficient to justify the revocation of the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa: paragraphs 5.2(7) and (8) of Direction 110.

1. First, the Applicant's aggravated burglary offence, in which she engaged while serving a term of imprisonment for the Index Offending, was a violent offence which is considered 'very serious': paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a)(i) of Direction 110. The 'very serious' nature of the offence is supported by the sentencing remarks, dated 2 August 2024. Judge Petrusa found this offending was:

'clearly serious', and noted that 'this is a home invasion, and home invasions involving forceful entry into someone's home, which is either known or suspected to be occupied, accompanied by threatened or actual - and/or actual violence, are significantly serious forms of burglaries, and this burglary had all of those features. It was premeditated. It occurred in company, at a time when one could reasonably expect people to be at home, and there were people present. Considerable force was used to get into the house. A weapon was brought into the home, albeit it's not suggested that it was brandished around in any way but, nonetheless, when the perpetrators were leaving the area, a BB gun was fired. So it's a serious offence' (G7, 47- 48). It was observed that it was clear the offending was being done for the benefit of the applicant who procured this offending (G7, 43 and 48).

1. Noting, as stated above, that the types of crimes that are to be viewed as 'very serious' for the purpose of paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a) of Direction 110 is not exhaustive, the Tribunal considers that the Applicant's Index Offending should be objectively viewed as 'very serious', having regard to the broader community impacts and the public costs of commercial drug distribution.
2. The Tribunal has previously recognised, on numerous occasions, that drugs 'cause real and serious harm to the Australian community'.[13]
3. The 'very serious' nature of the Applicant's Index Offending is demonstrated in the sentencing remarks of Judge Lemonis, who found:

the combination of that quantity and the purity is such that considerable harm could have been caused to members of the community if the drug had been distributed. Furthermore, you were in possession of this parcel of drugs for the purpose of commercial gain' (G8, 55).

1. The Applicant has also been convicted of a significant number of driving/traffic offences, with 14 convictions on record for driving whilst suspended or not having held a licence (G6, 36-37). In addition to the numerous offences involving driving without a valid licence, the Applicant also has a driving under the influence offence, two offences for driving in excess of 0.05%, excessive speeding and careless driving. The sentences the Applicant received included fines, licence disqualification and terms of imprisonment (G6, 38-39).
2. The Tribunal has often regarded driving offences to be of a very serious nature: QJYD and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] AATA 1 (QJYD). In QJYD, the Tribunal commented:

Road traffic laws are in place to protect the community, including innocent road users, from harm. Additionally, repeated breaches of road traffic laws tend to indicate a disregard for laws and authority generally, an inability to distinguish right from wrong, and a selfish disregard for the safety of innocent members of the community who share the roads (at [51])... there is a potential to lose control of a motor vehicle whilst driving under the influence of alcohol, which can have catastrophic consequences to innocent members of the community. Therefore, the Tribunal agrees that these offences are serious (at [66]).

3. The Tribunal views the Applicant's significant number of driving/traffic offences over a sustained period as 'serious' and demonstrative of a blatant disregard for Australian laws, authority and the Australian community, especially other road users. As submitted by the Respondent (HB8 at [40]), it is apparent from the repeated nature of the offending that the Applicant has demonstrated a persistent disregard for the law and, when viewed in the context of the objective 'very serious' nature of the Applicant's Index offending, weighs heavily against revocation.

1. Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(c) of Direction 110 provides that in considering the nature and 'seriousness' of the Applicant's criminal offending to date, the Tribunal must have regard to 'the sentence imposed by the courts for a crime or crimes', noting that, when reviewing the Minister's decision whether there is 'another reason' to revoke a mandatory visa cancellation, the Tribunal may not impugn or 'go behind' either the conviction or the sentence.[14]
2. As stated above, the Applicant has received sentences of imprisonment in 2009, 2013, 2014, 2017, 2022 and 2024: HB70 - HB72. It is well-recognised that sentences involving terms of imprisonment are the last resort in the sentencing hierarchy.[15]
3. The sentencing remarks for the Applicant's aggravated burglary offence noted that 'the seriousness of this offending is such that only a term of immediate imprisonment is appropriate' and a greater sentence was imposed on the Applicant as opposed to her co-offender in circumstances where she had a more serious and extensive criminal history, was in custody at the time she commissioned the offence, and she was not deterred by the fact that the calls were being recorded: HB81.
4. Where a court has sentenced an offender to a term of custodial imprisonment, this should be viewed as a reflection of the objective 'seriousness' of the offences involved: paragraph 8.1.1(1)(c) of Direction 110.

Frequency of offending and trend of increasing seriousness

1. It is clear from the evidence before the Tribunal that the Applicant's offending has been frequent and there is a trend of increasing seriousness: paragraph 8.1.1(1)(e) of Direction 110.
2. The Applicant has committed 73 offences over a 32-year period: HB69 - HB72. From 2009, the Applicant's offending escalated resulting in her receiving sentences of imprisonment in 2009, 2013, 2014 and 2017, followed by more substantial terms of imprisonment in 2022 and 2024.
3. Judge Petrusa made the following observations, in her Honour's sentencing remarks, dated 2 August 2024, on the continuing and escalated nature of the Applicant's offending:

...you have a lengthy criminal record, predominantly for offences involving drugs and traffic matters. > > You have been sentenced to all manners of disposition, including sentences of imprisonment. Notwithstanding this, you have continued to offend, and it would seem that your offending has escalated such that, on 21 January 2022, you were sentenced to a total effective sentence of six years' imprisonment, backdated to 25 September 2020, for offences relating to possession of dangerous drugs with intent to sell or supply, and the offer of drugs for sale. > > It is also clear that despite being in custody, you were not deterred from counselling criminal offending. Clearly then, issues of personal deterrence are a significant sentencing consideration...: HB76.

4. The Tribunal's view is that it cannot, objectively, be said that the Applicant's offending is a one-off mistake but, rather, reflects a consistent pattern of behaviour that endangers the Australian community: paragraph 8.1.1(1)(e) of Direction 110. This behaviour is entirely inconsistent with the expectation, as set out in the 'Principle' in paragraph 5.2(1) of Direction 110, that non-citizens are law-abiding and will respect important Australian institutions, such as Australia's law enforcement framework.

1. The Tribunal considers that the cumulative effect of the Applicant's repeated offending is 'very serious', and has resulted in significant use of police and court resources: paragraph 8.1.1(1)(f) of Direction 110. As stated above, the frequency and nature of the Applicant's offending demonstrate a continuing disregard for the laws of Australia and the safety of the Australian community.

1. The Applicant continued to offend despite being formally warned by the Department, on 13 August 2009, as to the effect that further offending could have on her migration status: see [6] above and HB160.
2. In her oral evidence at the hearing the Applicant said she does not recall the 2009 formal warning. However, the Applicant demonstrated her awareness of the 2009 formal warning by signing and returning the acknowledgement of receipt of the 2009 formal warning on 19 September 2009: see [6] above and HB165.
3. Furthermore, as stated in the 'Background' above, on each of 5 January 2015 and 12 April 2017, the Applicant's visa was mandatorily cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act on the basis that she had a 'substantial criminal record.' Both of those cancellations were revoked by a delegate of the Minister. As noted above, in the 2015 Revocation Decision, the delegate of the Minister observed the Applicant:

...needs to be aware that the delegate has carefully considered whether to revoke her mandatory cancellation and noting her previous warning in 2009 her case was very finely balanced...if Ms Gordon-Stables wishes to ensure her visa is not cancelled in the future it is in her best interests not to reoffend: see [10] above and HB157.

4. The Applicant signed acknowledgement of the 2015 Revocation Decision, and the fact that she can again be considered for cancellation of her visa in the future, on 25 February 2015: HB159.
5. The Applicant was also warned, in the 2017 Revocation Decision, that she can again be considered for cancellation of her visa on 'character grounds' in the event of further criminal offending by her: see [13] above and HB151.
6. Despite the 2009 formal warning and two previous visa cancellations and informal warnings, the Applicant continued to offend: paragraph 8.1.1(1)(h) of Direction 110.

1. Records obtained by the Respondent, under summons, from Western Australia Police Force (WA Police Records) confirm that the Applicant has been convicted of 38 offences between 1999 and 2024 (HB396 - HB131) and provide the following further detail regarding the circumstances of the Applicant's offending:
   • on 16 July 2021, the Applicant was arrested for breaching bail (failing a urine test) and 0.2g of Methylamphetamine was found on her person at the time. The Applicant claimed that a friend had left it at her home and she had taken it with her so that her adult son would not find it: HB143. The Applicant was convicted in the Rockingham Magistrates Court, on 28 January 2022, for 'Possess a prohibited drug', and fined $500: HB396;
   • on 17 April 2019, a loan account was established with ANZ bank for an amount of $11,000 (ANZ Bank Loan). The ANZ Bank Loan was established by fraudulent means without the 'knowledge or consent' of the person to whom the loan was granted: HB414. On 18 April 2019, $3000 and $5000 was transferred from the account to the Applicant's bank account. On 10 August 2020, the Applicant was convicted and sentenced to a one-year Community Based Order and fined $225.90: HB326;
   • on 4 October 2013, the Applicant was at home when the police attended the address and executed a Misuse of Drugs Act search warrant. Police found an electric shock weapon in working order, which the Applicant admitted ownership of, a can of pepper spray, and a serrated edged knife at her front door: HB445 - HB446. In relation to the serrated edged knife located near her front door, the Applicant stated 'It's there if I need it when someone comes to the door'. The Applicant was charged (HB445 - HB226) and on 1 July 2014, among other drug related offences, the Applicant was convicted of 'Possessed a controlled weapon', 'Possessed a prohibited weapon' and 'Carried (possessed) an article with intent to cause fear that someone will be injured or disabled': HB71 and HB399;
   • on 13 May 2007, the Applicant returned home, to the home she was living at the time with her daughter, alcohol and drug affected. Following an argument, the Applicant's daughter asked that she leave. The Applicant became angry and kicked a hole in the bedroom door. The Applicant's minor granddaughter and her daughter's younger brother were in the home at the time: HB503; and
   • on 7 August 2007, a 24-hour police order was issued against the Applicant, with her daughter named as the protected person: HB262 and see HB25 at [2].
2. Following a warning against self-incrimination by the Tribunal, the Applicant accepted that the abovementioned offending occurred (for which she did not receive a conviction) in her oral evidence at the hearing.
3. As stated above, the Applicant has been convicted of a significant number of driving/traffic offences with 14 convictions on record. In addition, the WA Police Records indicate that the Applicant has not held a driver's licence since 15 June 1994: HB452.
4. The Applicant's offending history, as set out above (at [20] to [40]) and established from the WA Police Records, demonstrates a persistent and wilful disregard for the law over a sustained period. This pattern of offending by the Applicant is clearly not isolated incidents, but, rather, represents a repeated and escalating disregard for her Australian legal obligations and the safety of the Australian community, which is paramount: paragraph 8.1(1) of Direction 110.

Conclusion: Nature and seriousness of the conduct (paragraph 8.1.1 of Direction 110)

1. For the above reasons, and as informed by the 'Principles' in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110, the Tribunal considers the 'nature and seriousness' of the Applicant's criminal conduct to date to be 'very serious': paragraph 8.1.1 of Direction 110.
2. In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal notes that a majority of the Full Court recently held that the Tribunal is not bound by the expressed views as to the 'seriousness' of certain conduct found within paragraph 8.1.1(a) and (b) of Direction 110 and, instead, the Tribunal is required to assess for itself the 'nature and seriousness' of a non-citizen's conduct to date and the weight that should be attributed to this consideration.[16]
3. For the above reasons, the Tribunal considers that the 'nature and seriousness' of the Applicant's criminal offending to date weighs heavily against revocation.

Risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct (paragraph 8.1.2 of Direction 110)

1. The Tribunal must also consider the 'risk' to the Australian community, should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct: paragraph 8.1.2 of Direction 110. Some conduct, and the harm that would be caused, if repeated, is so serious that any risk it may be repeated may be 'unacceptable': paragraph 8.1.2(1) of Direction 110.
2. In assessing the 'risk' posed by the non-citizen to the Australian community, the Tribunal must have 'regard to,' cumulatively:

(a) the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct: paragraph 8.1.2(2)(a) of Direction 110; and > > (b) the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in further criminal or serious conduct, taking into account: > > > (i) information and evidence on the risk of the Applicant reoffending; and > > > > (ii) evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community, if any, since his most recent offence: paragraph 8.1.2(2)(b) of Direction 110.

3. The concept of 'risk' and whether it is 'unacceptable,' for the purpose of paragraph 8.1.2(1) of Direction 110, is not the same thing as the 'likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct', for the purpose of paragraph 8.1.2(2) of Direction 110.[17]
4. Direction 110, directs the Tribunal's 'risk' assessment by expressly stating that, informed by the 'Principles' in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110, the:

(a) Australian Government is committed to 'protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens': paragraph 8.1(1) of Direction 110; > > (b) Australian Government views that certain types of conduct may be considered by it and the Australian community as 'very serious' and 'serious': paragraph 8.1.1(1) of Direction 110; and > > (c) Australian Government's view is that 'the Australian community's tolerance of any further risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases': paragraph 8.1.2(1) of Direction 110.

5. In Tanielu v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCAFC 673; (2014) 225 FCR 424, Justice Mortimer (as her Honour then was) said (at [103]):

It is well established that, where the harm which might be caused by future conduct is particularly serious, a lesser likelihood of the conduct occurring may be required for the risk to be identified at a level requiring a particular decision to be made. It is also well established that the likelihood of a person engaging in conduct in the future is affected by both static and dynamic factors: that is, factors which can be assessed objectively against statistical models to predict the risk category a person falls into, and dynamic factors personal to an individual which may moderate or exacerbate the risk the person otherwise could be said to pose. Those factors might include family support, alcohol and drug abuse patterns, employment and the like. > > (emphasis added)

6. Accordingly, the 'risk' referred to in the balancing exercise contemplated by Direction 110 is not just 'any' risk that a non-citizen may 'commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct', but is aimed at the Tribunal's assessment of the nature and degree of harm said to exist in the circumstances of the Applicant's case. There is no statutory constraint on the way the Tribunal is to assess that risk, other than the requirement for the Tribunal to adopt a rational and probative approach to the assessment.[18]

Nature of the harm to individuals and the Australian community

1. For the above reasons, the Tribunal considers that the Applicant's offences are 'very serious', and any likelihood that they may be repeated is unacceptable to the Australian community. More particularly, as contended by the Respondent, having regard to the 'downstream community impacts' of commercial drug offending, any future offending by the Applicant, of a similar nature, would expose the Australian community to significant physical, financial and psychological harm: HB10 at [48] and paragraph 8.1.2(2)(a) of Direction 110. Such harm is, as submitted by the Respondent, so serious that any risk that it may be repeated is unacceptable: HB10 at [48] and paragraph 8.1.2(1) of Direction 110.
2. It is widely accepted that methylamphetamine not only harms users but is also damaging to the Australian community more broadly. It is common knowledge that methylamphetamine is 'the worst of the worst' in terms of drugs and causes a great deal of damage in the community to people who use it and to people who come across people who use it. A publicly available report, produced by Australian Border Force[19] (ABF Report), notes that methylamphetamine 'has a strong link to crime - particularly property and violent crime, including domestic violence': ABF Report at p 6. According to the ABF Report, in 2013 to 2014, the estimated social cost of methylamphetamine was estimated to be over $5 billion: ABF Report at p 6.
3. In Tahuriorangi and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] AATA 2158 at [51]-[54], the Tribunal commented on the nature of potential future harm to the Australian community, involved in the sale of dangerous drugs, as follows:

This Applicant had a significant involvement in the trafficking and supply of dangerous drugs. The consumption of such substances may cause catastrophic harm to individual users. However, there are other and perhaps slightly less obvious deleterious effects of this unlawful activity. As is now well-known, addicted individual users of these substances all too often resort to committing crimes themselves in order to raise sufficient funds to meet their habit. > > As well, there is a quantifiable cost to the community both in terms of an increased imposition on (1) the public health system to cope with the physical and psychological consequences of these substances in our community; and (2) resources to be allocated to law enforcement agencies to detect and apprehend the wrongdoers and the justice system to hear and adjudicate offences arising from this activity. > > It is clear that any return or resumption by the Applicant to his previous drug offending conduct would represent a quite significant risk of physical and psychological harm to members of the Australian community. > > ... given the serious nature of the Applicant's prior offending, were he to reoffend, the nature of the harm he could cause to either individuals or the Australian community more generally, is plainly serious and includes the risk of injury or death.

Likelihood of non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct

1. As contended by the Respondent, the Applicant's conduct clearly demonstrates a level of deliberate intention: HB10 at [49]. The Applicant has repeatedly engaged in drug offending, including selling or intending to sell, despite receiving several fines and terms of imprisonment and often committed these offences while being on conditional liberty: HB10 at [49].
2. The Applicant's intention to deal with a significant quantity of high-purity methylamphetamine, to which she pleaded not guilty, but was found by a jury to be guilty with the methylamphetamine intended for distribution in the Australian community, is considered an overwhelming aggravating feature by the Tribunal. The Applicant's conduct posed a substantial risk to the Australian community, because, as stated above, the distribution of methylamphetamine, a dangerous and highly addictive drug, can cause extensive physical, financial, and psychological harm to the Australian community, and any risk of reoffending ought to be considered unacceptable.
3. In sentencing the Applicant, on 10 June 2013, for the driving offences, Magistrate Temby commented:

You have a significant pattern of continuing to drive without a valid driver's licence? The sanctions that have been imposed on you in the past don't seem to have made any difference. You have got poor decision making skills. It goes on to say that you don't seem to have an appreciation of the impact of your poor decision making. What you tend to do is to make impulsive decisions when situations crop up without thinking about alternatives: HB 120- HB121. > > (emphasis added)

4. In sentencing the Applicant for the Index Offending, Judge Lemonis assessed the Applicant's risk of reoffending as follows:

In assessing your risk of reoffending in a similar manner I take account of your prior offending, that this offending was not isolated, your methylamphetamine addiction and also that counts 3 and 9 were committed while you were on bail for counts 1 and 2. > > ...When I have regard to these matters overall I consider your risk of reoffending is a moderate one and whether you ultimately do cease offending really does depend on you becoming drug-free: HB57.

5. In her written and oral evidence, the Applicant claims her drug offending was driven by the following factors:

(a) financial difficulties, including financially supporting her seven children and her own drug addiction; > > (b) depression/anxiety, feeling helpless and being too proud to ask family and friends for help - she was embarrassed and ashamed by her conduct and did not want to 'burden' her family with her problems; > > (c) attracting antisocial people into her life; > > (d) putting others first, allowing others to take advantage of her giving/generous and kind nature; and > > (e) creating a drug habit she could not afford: HB198.

6. In her oral evidence at the hearing, the Applicant described her relationship with alcohol and drugs as follows. Growing up she was exposed to incest and had a forced abortion at the age of 14. The Applicant said she has chosen to 'bury' this childhood trauma. She started drinking at about the age of 14 or 15. She 'gave up' alcohol in her 20s and has not had a drink in at least 25 years. She started 'using' drugs when she was about 28 years old, after having children, and has been 'using' drugs on and off up until her most recent imprisonment (i.e. she has taken drugs for about six years). The Applicant explained that, at the time of the drug offending, she was working at a fish and chip shop, was under huge financial pressure, and started 'small scale' drug dealing to supplement her income, fund her own drug use, pay her own drug debts and rase her seven children alone. The Applicant described herself as a 'warm, kind and generous' person who has previously surrounded herself with the wrong people (was under the influence of negative peers) and consequently made bad decisions. That is, the Applicant has previously sought to minimise her involvement in and responsibility for various drug charges, seeking to attribute her conduct to the influence of others. For example, the Applicant claims her cannabis charge from 2014 actually belonged to her son, but she 'took the cannabis charge' so that her son would not have to (i.e. to protect him): HB200. The Applicant said that, since being in prison, she has 'cut all ties' with negative influences in her life and she would never have anything to do with them ever again. When asked what she would do if she ever ran into these people again, she said she would 'walk away'.
7. Further, the Applicant told the Tribunal that she now accepts her offending caused considerable harm to the Australian community and demonstrates a disregard for Australian law and the safety of the Australian community. The Applicant described her offending, on several occasions in her oral evidence, as a 'disgrace' and disgusting' and that she 'regrets' her entire criminal history. The Tribunal considers that the Applicant's expressions of insight into and remorse about her offending are tempered by the following.
8. In her 'Personal Circumstances Form', received by the Department on 1 May 2023, the Applicant stated that she has completed the following courses or programs that will help her 'avoid further offending':
   • Pathways Program;
   • Standing on Solid Ground;
   • Personal wellbeing, Springboard, Drug and Alcohol;
   • AA; and
   • Wanguming: HB187.
9. However, the Applicant has not provided documentary evidence demonstrating when and if she completed these courses/programs. Although there is evidence in the documents produced under summons from Corrective Services that the Applicant completed the 'Addictions Offending - Pathways Program' on 25 January 2010. As contended by the Respondent, the absence of evidence to suggest the Applicant has truly addressed her substance abuse issues raises significant concerns about the risk of relapse and further offending and poses a real and not insignificant risk to the Australian community: HB11 at [52] and paragraph 8.1.2(2)(b) of Direction 110.
10. An Individual Management Plan', approved 11 August 2025, records that the Applicant has successfully completed the following courses:
    • Workplace health and Safety (on 15 October 2021);
    • GATE (Gaining Access to Education) (on 24 February 2022); and
    • Cleaning/Asset Maintenance (on 24 February 2022): HB69.
11. Whilst the Applicant's completion of these programs is commendable, they do not address the causative factors or underlying behaviours that led to the Applicant's offending, including the trauma she suffered as a minor growing up which, on her own evidence, she has chosen to 'bury' rather than face front on. More specifically, there is no evidence before the Tribunal to indicate that the Applicant has sought or obtained any mental health treatment to address her mental health issues (depression/anxiety). There is also no evidence that the Applicant has participated in any rehabilitation programs or counselling related to financial competency. Although, in her oral evidence at the hearing, the Applicant told the Tribunal that she was commencing a financial course, at the Boronia Pre Release Centre, the following day, without providing details about that course.
12. There is evidence before the Tribunal that, in early May 2023, the Applicant wrote to Cyrenian House, Alcohol & Other Drug Treatment Centre, expressing an interest in treatment at the Centre. By letter dated 31 May 2023, Cyrenian House, replied to the Applicant, stating:

As soon as you know when you are getting our, you should call us on the number listed below to organize an appointment time. We currently don't do assessments in prison. You will need to be back in the wider community for assessment. > > Unfortunately, we do not provide services in the Eastern Goldfields Prison. You will need to speak to your transition officer there: HB211.

13. There is also evidence before the Tribunal that, on 3 May 2023, the Applicant wrote to the Mental Health Commission of Western Australia requesting information on services available to her whilst in the Eastern Goldfields Regional Prison and upon her release: HB212. On 31 May 2023, the Mental Health Commission wrote to the Applicant stating:

Prison mental health services are the responsibility of the Mental Health Alcohol and Other Drugs (MHAOD) branch of Offender Services within the Department [of Justice]. Staff at [the prison] will be best placed to provide advice on how you can access treatment and support while in prison: HB212.

14. Whilst the Tribunal acknowledges the Applicant has recently taken recent steps to access programs to address the underlying causative factors of her offending, the Tribunal must consider the Applicant's rehabilitation, at the time of making its decision, and is mindful of her recent unwillingness to engage in and complete the Wandoo Therapeutic Program in 2023, despite being accepted into it, as described below.
15. Records obtained by the Respondent, under summons, from Corrective Services WA report the following:

• on 22 August 2017, the Applicant was released to short term parole. However, on 13 September 2017, the Applicant's short-term parole was cancelled by the Prisoners Review Board due to a breach of the parole order. The Applicant tested positive to methylamphetamine on 28 August 2017, 1 September 2017 and 6 September 2017 despite the Applicant attending a meeting with the Community Corrections Officer, on 11 September 2017, where she denied taking methylamphetamine: HB359. In deciding to cancel the Applicant's parole, the Prisoners Review Board stated:

The Board is concerned about your relapse into illicit substance use and your dishonesty as regards that use and is no longer satisfied that it can be confident that you do not pose a risk to the safety of the community. Accordingly, your parole is cancelled: HB359;

• the Applicant has been subject to six substance tests, 30 breath tests and 18 saliva tests, during her more recent term of imprisonment, with all tests returning negative results: HB381; and
• the Applicant was 'treatment assessed' at the Eastern Goldfields Regional Prison, on 18 March 2022, and deemed as a low risk/need; with no programs required: HB382. She voluntarily self-referred to the Wandoo Therapeutic Community Program to address her substance misuse issues. The Offender Needs Analysis subsequently deemed the Applicant as 'suitable' to engage in the program. The Applicant commenced the program on 12 May 2022 but did not complete the program and voluntarily exited it on 14 September 2022: HB382. The Wandoo Therapeutic Community Program report, dated 15 February 2023 (Wandoo Report), states:

During her intake interview [the Applicant] initially presented as motivated and willing to engage in the program to address her substance abuse cycle. However, [the Applicant] later requested to exit the program as she felt she was a resilient person who could make the changes to address her substance abuse without assistance. She noted that she had taken the necessary steps to identify her triggers to drug use when she was previously out on bail. [The Applicant] was perceived by staff and residents as defensive and unwilling to participate in the program. This behaviour was evidenced by her resistance to receiving and giving support and her unwillingness to provide feedback to other residents in processing groups. [The Applicant] furthermore did not attend group and individual counselling sessions when required and did not complete therapeutic interventions addressing her non-participation in the program: HB389;

• The Wandoo Report recommended the Applicant engage in a program to address her substance use issues and offending behaviours, engage with counselling in the community to support ongoing development of relapse prevention strategies and participate in peer support groups such as Narcotics Anonymous: HB391.

1. In her oral evidence at the hearing, the Applicant told the Tribunal that she voluntarily exited the Wandoo Therapeutic Community Program because she is not a good 'reader and writer' and felt 'overwhelmed' by the amount of reading and writing the program involved. She said she considered recommencing the course but chose The Whitehaven Clinic's Addiction Recovery Process Program, detailed below, instead. The Applicant told the Tribunal that she has 'put her hand up' for all courses available to her in prison but there are not many available due to prison staffing issues and that she is 'doing her best'. Despite this, the Tribunal considers that the Applicant's failure to complete past rehabilitative opportunities raises significant concern about her capacity to now engage, if released, considering her history of recidivism.
2. In a report from Sarah Humble (Ms Humble), Program Facilitator, Addiction Recovery Process Program, at The Whitehaven Clinic, Addiction Treatment and Recovery Centre, dated 6 October 2025 (Whitehaven Report), Ms Humble states that the Applicant has voluntarily paid for and completed 14 one-on-one counselling sessions, 90 minutes in duration (i.e. totalling 21 hours of counselling) in The Whitehaven Clinic's Addiction Recovery Process Program (Whitehaven Program): Exhibit 2. In the Whitehaven Report, Ms Humble describes the Applicant's participation in the Whitehaven Program as follows:

This program is focused on addressing the underlying root cause of her drug addiction that has contributed to her offending behaviours. It is also designed to focus on rebuilding a life without drugs by incorporating a holistic approach to recovery, by looking at the key areas of [the Applicant's] life that need to be addressed as identified in her treatment plan. > > ...During our sessions, [the Applicant] wanted to understand the underlying root cause of the extensive drug use and how she could make changes to her life so that she could continue her ongoing abstinence. This readiness and openness for discussion meant that our sessions could be focused on identifying the root cause and looking at the underlying belief systems. This in turn assists with long-term behavioural changes: Exhibit 2 at p 1.

3. In the Whitehaven Report, Ms Humble outlines the following factors as 'significant contributors' to the Applicant's reliance on drugs, including 'suppression of anger and resentment rather than processing emotions':
   • - Being hyper-responsible and not allowing people to help her - seeing seeking help as a failure and weakness, resulting in triggering self-punishing and self-critical behaviours;
   • - Poor emotional boundaries in relationships;
   • - Accepting situations that do not serve her or align with her values;
   • - Relapse patterns linked to difficulty disengaging from unhealthy or unsafe individuals;
   • - Suppression of anger and resentment rather than processing emotions;
   • - Avoidant coping style when faced with emotional discomfort or conflict;
   • - A strong Inner Critic creating patterns of self-punishment;
   • - Ongoing frustration and anger, leading to a relentless struggle for self-control, creating considerable physical tension: Exhibit 2 at p 3.
4. When asked by the Tribunal what coping strategies she has learned in the Whitehaven Program to address this, the Applicant's response was that in the future, if something was not her problem and not affecting her personally, she would not get involved but, rather, 'take a breath' and walk away.
5. In the Whitehaven Report, Ms Humble summarises the progress the Applicant has made in the Whitehaven Program, as follows:

In Summary > > The work that [the Applicant] has done with me shows me that she is exceptionally capable of changing her future direction should she choose. She has demonstrated considerable insight into her past actions and why she does what she does. She is aware of [her] psychologically based fears and triggers and understands the benefits of staying emotionally and mentally healthy. > > Since initial engagement, I have seen excellent progress in [the Applicant's] growth and capacity for change. She has worked diligently on all homework tasks and extended Herself with additional reading in between our sessions and chose to remain engaged past completion. One of the biggest realisations for [the Applicant] was understanding the underlying cause of her drug use and working through this to develop strategies to deal with triggers on a day-to-day basis. > > The Addiction Recovery Process Program sessions have all been focused on self-awareness, knowledge of underlying root cause triggers, and developing strategies to prevent relapse. [The Applicant] recognises the need to keep working on herself and put in place measures that keep her healthy. This self-awareness, combined with an ongoing focus on maintaining emotional and mental healthiness, will continue to provide a solid platform from which to make the necessary changes to improve her quality of life in a sustainable way without resorting to drug use: Exhibit 2 at p 12.

6. In the Whitehaven Report, Ms Humble states that the 'key objectives' in the Applicant's counselling in the Whitehaven Program are as follows:
   • - Learn how to deal with problems and emotions better: "especially anger, rather than suppress it all the time";
   • - Understand how to better define boundaries: "Walk away from people when they're not good for me rather than trying to help them";
   • - Understand and address the underlying root cause of her past drug use;
   • - Address underlying anger and frustration;
   • - Change behaviours and implement strategies to prevent future drug use and offending behaviours;
   • - Develop and maintain stronger personal boundaries to protect herself from unhealthy or toxic relationships.
7. The Tribunal considers that the Applicant's claimed rehabilitation and reflection, since her most recent incarceration, is recent and untested outside prison in an unsupervised environment. As stated above, the Whitehaven Report, dated 6 October 2025, reports that the Applicant has only recently completed 14 one-on-one counselling sessions (i.e. a total of 21 hours of one-on-one counselling) as at that date. On the evidence, the Applicant is yet to address most of the factors set out above in the Whitehaven Report and, in particular, to understand and address the underlying cause of her past drug use and her anger and frustration. For example, in her oral evidence at the hearing, the Applicant acknowledged that she has 'buried' the trauma experienced growing up (i.e. incest and a forced abortion at the age of 14) and 'will have to work on it' in the future.
8. The Applicant has been incarcerated in five Australian prisons. At the hearing, the Applicant acknowledged that she has had access to drugs whilst in prison but has abstained. The Applicant said that her previous drug use was not because of a physical/medical addiction but, rather, a 'desire to escape pressures' (i.e. personal and financial pressures). Whilst it may be accepted that the Applicant has had some ability to illegally access illicit substances in prison, it must be accepted that the Applicant would have the ability to more freely access illicit substances in the community.[20] Further, the Applicant's ability to abstain from drug use outside prison in an unsupervised environment, when faced with personal and financial pressures, remains untested.
9. In her 'Personal Circumstances Form', received by the Department on 1 May 2023, the Applicant claimed she was innocent of the aggravated burglary charges, that her lawyers misled her to plead guilty and she does not 'deserve' the four years' imprisonment she received for this charge: HB194 - HB196 and HB209. The Applicant claimed she was manipulated by Ms Wright, without realising she was involved in a crime and that her legal team did not have her 'best interests at heart' and 'let her down' by recommending that she plead guilty to the aggravated burglary, which she had no intention of doing: HB194 - HB 196 and HB209. This demonstrates a lack of insight into the seriousness of her offending and no remorse for the 'very serious' crime she procured. In her oral evidence at the hearing, the Applicant explained that at the time of the aggravated burglary she did not think she had committed a crime because she did not physically go to the house and commit the burglary (but, rather, her ex-partner Mr Anderson did) and the police did not contact her about the burglary until at least 12 months after it happened. However, she now takes full responsibility for this crime and she understands its seriousness, including the fact that a minor was present at the house as the time of the burglary, making it an aggravated burglary.
10. Following a warning against self-incrimination by the Tribunal, the Applicant acknowledged that she has, on several occasions, driven a car without a valid licence with minors/children in the car under the influence of an illicit substance(s). The Applicant accepted that this conduct put herself, the minor passengers, and, more broadly, the Australian community at risk. However, this expression of remorse is tempered by the fact that the Applicant told the Tribunal that she drove without a licence because she felt like she had 'no choice' because of the limited public transport available to her in Rockingham at the time and because she had ready access to a vehicle because, as a hobby (that she used to do with her father growing up) she would buy cheap damaged cars, repair them and sell them for profit. This demonstrates little or no insight into the seriousness of her driving offences and a blatant disregard for Australian law and the safety of the Australian community.
11. In her 'Request for Revocation of a Mandatory Visa Cancellation Under s 501(3A)', dated 1 May 2023, the Applicant states:

Firstly I would like to say sorry to my family, friends, my community and society as a whole. I'm so sorry. > > I have been a drug user on and off for many years. Though I have stopped using at time[s], I always found myself in circumstances, mainly being around other drug users, was my downfall... > > ... > > I have first hand seen the affects drugs have on my community and I am extremely remorseful for the part I played in it. > > I do have a relatively long criminal history. Even though I felt the length of this sentence harsh, I understand the seriousness of the conduct and it is definitely deturded (sic.) me from repeating that behaviour. > > Since being incarcerated I have had time to reflect on my life and the damage I have caused. I have now been clean for almost 4 years, I like this straight person I am now and endeavour to stay drug free. > > With the respect and support of my family, I know I can achieve this. I know I can ask for help if I am struggling and have the addresses and contact numbers of institutes e.g. councillors written in my diary. > > I have been using my time in prison to study that will help me gain full time work on release. > > I am about to finish my Cert II in Cleaning Traineeship and will soon be starting a Warehouse Management & Logistics Traineeship. > > These as well as other tickets I have completed will help get employment I am aiming for, working FiFo. > > ... > > I have worked on my self esteem and now know I can be dependent on me. > > If the Minister choses to reinstate my Visa I will endeaver (sic.) to contribute to society by staying drug free, working full time and helping in the community anyway I can: HB171 - HB174.

12. As stated above, the Applicant claims she has reflected on her actions and understands the seriousness of her conduct and is remorseful for it: HB173. The Tribunal affords limited weight to any expressions or statements made by the Applicant regarding her alleged remorse for and insight into her offending in circumstances where she continued to engage in criminal activity (i.e. she procured an 'aggravated burglary') while incarcerated for the Index Offending.
13. In her 'Personal Circumstances Form', received by the Department on 1 May 2023, the Applicant states that she did not understand the 'warnings' previously issued by the Department and claimed that she signed the acknowledgement of formal counselling letter without understanding what she was signing, she was confused by the whole process and only signed it because she 'wanted to go home' and did what she had to 'to make that happen': HB202.
14. The Tribunal considers that, as contended by the Respondent, the Applicant ought to have sought clarification at the time prior to signing the acknowledgement letters, and that this further demonstrates the Applicant's attempts to abrogate responsibility of her actions by denying she understood the impact they would have on her visa, despite her being subject to two prior cancellation decisions: HB12 at [56].
15. As stated above, the Applicant has continued to offend despite several warnings and suspended terms of imprisonment. In this regard, in his Honour's 1 July 2014 sentencing remarks, Magistrate Wilson observed:

...It comes to the stage where orders of the courts need to be obeyed and there needs to be punishment that then follows the event,... > > ...my view is that it's more than just to activate [your suspended term of imprisonment], because you simply continue to disobey the orders not to reoffend by placing you on a suspended sentence, and in quite a remarkable way in some respects... > > As I say, it really is now getting to the stage where at your 13th odd conviction for driving under suspension just places you almost inevitably at the stage where every time you come before the court for at that type of offence an immediate term of imprisonment is almost inevitable. So far as the rug offences go, the cannabis - in my view, there was a significant amount of cannabis found on your possession and it was there to be distributed within the community and likewise with the amphetamines. > > There was about two grams there, also to be distributed through the community and you simply continue to offend with drugs, continue to offend by driving under suspension, in the well - well in the knowledge of the likely consequences and your record gives you no mitigation at all in relation to these matters. My view is it simply isn't unjust to activate a term of imprisonment that was imposed in June of 2013: HB114.

16. In closing, the Applicant's counsel submitted that the Applicant's risk of reoffending was 'significantly' reduced by her recent lengthy sentence and incarceration during which time she has reflected upon her life and her offending. More particularly, the Applicant's counsel contended that the Applicant's risk of re-offending is 'significantly' reduced because of the following five factors:

(i) The Applicant's age: she is now 55 years old (and will be 56 years old at the time she is eligible for parole in August 2026). She has matured and is not interested in engaging in the drug related activities she previously engaged in;

(ii) The Applicant is in the process of reconnecting with her family (she has a great relationship with them) and is now, unlike in the past, open to accepting their help: She was previously unwilling to seek support from her family. She did not want to 'burden' them with her problems. She was embarrassed and ashamed about her drug related lifestyle. That is no longer the case. She is older, more mature, and open to receiving her family's assistance;

(iii) The Applicant's living conditions have changed since her most recent incarceration: Upon her release, she will have to pay little or no rent and utility bills because she can either live with her sister (Tania) in Rockingham, Western Australia or with her parents in Townsville, Queensland;

(iv) The Applicant's seven children are now adults and financially independent: She no longer has the financial pressure of raising seven children; and

(v) This is the most significant sentence and period of incarceration the Applicant has endured: This time in prison has afforded the Applicant opportunity to gain significant insight into and reflect upon her offending.

Conclusion - Risk to the Australian community (paragraph 8.1.2 of Direction 110)

1. Given her history and the 'very serious' nature of her repeated offending, the Tribunal finds that her ability to remain drug-free and financially stable in the community remains untested, and it cannot be confident that she will not reoffend and make the same decisions if faced with financial or personal hardship in the future. Further, the Applicant has not addressed her childhood trauma, which on her own evidence she has chosen to 'bury', and her underlying anger and frustration: Exhibit 2 at p 3. The Applicant's 'very serious' repeated offending and extensive criminal record, indicates there continues to be a risk that she would reoffend upon release from prison, as she has done each time upon release from prison in the past.
2. For the above reasons, the Tribunal considers that the Applicant presents a real, and not insignificant, risk of reoffending and, if she were to reoffend, further serious harm would be visited upon the Australian community, noting that even a 'low' risk of offending is unacceptable if the gravity of the harm that might eventuate, as is the case here, is sufficiently 'serious'.[21]
3. The Tribunal finds that the risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in further 'very serious' conduct, weighs heavily against revocation: paragraph 8.1.2 of Direction 110.

Conclusion: Protection of the Australian community (paragraph 8.1 of Direction 110)

1. Informed by the 'Principles' stated in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110, and considering: (i) the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct to date; and (ii) the risk to the Australian community should she commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct, the Tribunal considers that the first 'primary consideration' (Protection of the Australian community), in paragraph 8.1. of Direction 110, weighs heavily against revocation, noting that the safety of the 'Australian community' is the highest priority of the Australian government: paragraph 5.2(2) of Direction 110.

SECOND PRIMARY CONSIDERATION: WHETHER THE CONDUCT ENGAGED IN CONSTITUTED FAMILY VIOLENCE (PARAGRAPH 8.2 OF DIRECTION 110)

1. Paragraph 8.2(1) of Direction 110 provides that the Government has 'serious concerns about conferring on non-citizens who engage in family violence the privilege of... remaining in Australia'. This consideration is relevant both in circumstances where there has been a conviction of a 'family violence' offence, and where there is information or evidence from independent and authoritative sources indicating that there has been the perpetration of 'family violence': paragraph 8.2(2) of Direction 110.[22]
2. Direction 110 provides that 'family violence' means violent, threatening, or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person's family or causes the family member to be fearful. The definition also includes examples of behaviour that may constitute family violence: paragraph 4(1) of Direction 110.
3. As noted by Senior Member Kirk in Lum and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] AATA 792 at [139]:

The Tribunal has consistently found that family violence is abhorrent. It has been described as a corrosive blight on the Australian community'', 'plainly abhorrent and an offence which 'warps and destroys the healthy bonds that should exist between partners and within families...

4. Following a warning by the Tribunal against self-incrimination, the Applicant was taken, in cross-examination, to WA Police Reports which record that the Applicant has been involved in the following perpetration of 'family violence' (for which she did not receive a conviction):

(a) on the morning of 13 May 2007, it was reported that the Applicant returned to her daughter's home, having recently moved in approximately two weeks earlier on the condition that the Applicant 'gave the drugs and alcohol away'. The Applicant returned home drunk, and drug affected, and an argument between the Applicant and her daughter ensued, with the Applicant's daughter telling the Applicant to leave. The Applicant became upset and angry and kicked a hole in her daughter's bedroom door. The Applicant then departed the residence. It was reported that the Applicant's granddaughter and her daughter's young brother were home at the time of the incident: HB503; and > > (b) on the morning of 7 August 2007, a 24-hour police order was issued against the Applicant. The reported circumstances of the incident were that the Applicant's daughter had kicked the Applicant out of the property. The Applicant returned the next day to collect her belongings when an argument broke out. Police attended the scene, and the police order was issued against the Applicant. The Applicant was picked up and left the property. It was reported that a young child was also at the home and was picked up by their grandfather and 'was in good spirits': HB501.

5. When asked about the above incidents at the hearing, the Applicant acknowledged that they occurred and described them as 'disgusting behaviour'. Although the Applicant was not convicted for either of the above incidents, which the Tribunal considers come within the definition of 'family violence' in paragraph 4(1) of Direction 110, this is a matter the Tribunal should consider pursuant to paragraph 8.2(2)(b) of Direction 110. Significantly, the Tribunal notes the reported violence occurred in the family home, where a minor resided, which elevates the seriousness of the conduct and its potential impact on vulnerable individuals.
6. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the second 'primary consideration' (Family violence committed by the non-citizen), in paragraph 8.2. of Direction 110, weighs moderately against revocation.

THIRD PRIMARY CONSIDERATION: THE STRENGTH, NATURE AND DURATION OF TIES TO AUSTRALIA (PARAGRAPH 8.3 OF DIRECTION 110)

1. Paragraph 8.3(1) of Direction 110 provides that the Tribunal must consider any impact of the decision whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen's visa on the non-citizen's 'immediate family members in Australia', where those family members are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, or people who have the right to remain in Australia indefinitely.
2. Paragraph 8.3(2) of Direction 110 provides that in considering whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen's visa, the Tribunal must also consider the strength, nature and duration of 'any other ties' that the Applicant has to the Australian community. In doing so, the Tribunal must have regard to:

(a) how long the non-citizen has resided in Australia, including whether the non-citizen arrived as a young child, noting that: > > > (i) less weight should be given where the non-citizen began offending soon after arriving in Australia; and > > > > (ii) more weight should be given to time the non-citizen has spent contributing positively to the Australian community; and > > (b) the strength, duration and nature of family or social links with Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, and/or people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia.

Immediate family members in Australia (paragraph 8.3(1) of Direction 110)

1. The Applicant has identified her immediate family in Australia as including her father, step-mother, three sisters, step-father, seven children and 11 grandchildren: HB186. The Applicant's seven children (all adults) and 11 grandchildren were all born in Australia: HB105 and HB138. The Applicant's biological/birth mother passed away in 2023 (aged 80), while she was incarcerated: HB204. At the hearing, the Applicant expressed her sadness at missing her biological mother's funeral because of her offending and incarceration.
2. The Applicant claims that she has a close relationship with her father and step-mother, an Indigenous Australian, who live in Townsville, Queensland: HB204. The Applicant claims her step-mother has advanced dementia and diabetes, her 80-year-old father is her step-mother's full-time carer, and they both need her to provide care for them: HB204. She hopes to live with, and care for them, upon release: HB204. The Applicant applied for a prison transfer from the Eastern Goldfields Regional Prison to the Townsville Correction Facility, Queensland, to be closer to her elderly parents before her release: HB204. However, in her oral evidence at the hearing, the Applicant told the Tribunal that she subsequently cancelled the transfer request pending the outcome of these proceedings.
3. The Applicant's youngest daughter provided a statement, dated 10 June 2023, stating:

...We know our mum is facing deportation. Mum is extremely loved by all 7 of her children and it will break our hearts if mum gets deported...She is a wonderful person who has made bad choices and mistakes as we all do...Mum is a very important person to all of us and we would be lost without her...: HB233.

4. The Applicant's father also provided a statement, dated 6 November 2023, highlighting that he and the Applicant's step-mother require assistance and the Applicant has committed to move to Townsville to live with them upon release and take care of them, which he considers will help her change her ways and direction in life, and that he would organise part-time work for her: HB234 - HB235. In that letter, the Applicant's father states:

[The Applicant's] step mother now 80 years who is a diabetic 2 has dementure (sic.) quite bad & suffers virtigo (sic.) regularly Is becoming harder for me to take care of. I myself have aging problems. > > ...[the Applicant] has promised to come to Townsville Queensland to live with us & take care of her and mum & dad...coming to Townsville & careing (sic.) for her parents will help her also to change her ways & direction in life. I will also be able to organise some part time work for her...: HB234 - HB 235.

5. In her oral evidence at the hearing, the Applicant told the Tribunal that upon her release she plans to move to Townsville, Queensland and live with her father and step-mother, whom she is very close to. Her plan is to care for her elderly parents by day and work, to earn an income, at night. The Applicant's youngest sister lives with her daughter in Cairns, Queensland, about seven hours from Townsville, and her second eldest daughter, Skye, lives in Emerald, Queensland, a couple of hours between Townsville and Cairns. The Applicant also has many aunties and uncles that live in Queensland. The Applicant's youngest son, Anthony, has expressed an interest in joining her in Queensland upon her release. Once her parents pass away, the Applicant plans to return to live in Western Australia where her other two sisters, her other six children and her other ten grandchildren reside. Alternatively, the Applicant told the Tribunal that upon her release she may live with her sister, Tania, in Rockingham, Western Australia.
6. On the first day of the hearing, the Applicant gave evidence that she had been estranged from her eldest daughter, Tiri, for at least two years. However, on the second day of the hearing the Applicant's eldest daughter appeared at the back of the hearing room, presumably in a show of support for her mother.
7. There is no doubt, on the evidence before the Tribunal, that the Applicant is close to most of her immediate family (which is extensive) and that they would be adversely impacted by a decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa: paragraph 8.3(1) of Direction 110.

Other ties to the Australian community (paragraph 8.3(2) of Direction 110)

1. The Applicant has been a resident in Australia since January 1977, having arrived in Australia at the age of 7 years (i.e. a total of 48 years) and spent many of her formative years in Australia: HB179 and paragraph 8.3(2)(a) of Direction 110.
2. The Applicant attended high school up to year 10, in Australia, after which she commenced working. From 2012 to 2019 the Applicant worked as a chef at Malibu Fish & Chips, Rockingham and, from 2020 to 2021, she worked as a chef for the RSL, Port Kennedy: HB189. The Applicant has provided a letter from Steven Elliott, President at RSL, Port Kennedy, dated 30 September 2021, wherein Mr Elliot refers to the Applicant as 'experienced, honest and trustworthy': HB241. At some stage, the Applicant states she volunteered at a Salvation Army soup kitchen: HB190.
3. The Applicant has provided a Certificate III in cleaning operations, dated 14 December 2023, and a letter of support (undated) which describes the Applicant as an 'Outstanding Trainee/Apprentice': HB214. She has also provided a 'Statement of Attainment', issued on 26 February 2025, from Central Regional TAFE, Government of Western Australia, for a Certificate II in Resources and Infrastructure Work Preparation: HB216.
4. The Applicant states that she has completed the following additional courses in Australia:
   • Workplace health and safety;
   • Certificate II and III in Cleaning operations;
   • Certificate I in EGE;
   • Certificate II in Emergency medical service first response;
   • Certificate II in Furniture making;
   • Certificate I Sport and recreation;
   • Foodstars;
   • Certificate II in Business;
   • White card; and
   • Working with heights: HB188.
5. The Applicant has also provided a certificate regarding her contribution towards the 2023 City of Kalgoorlie Boulder Mayor's Winter Warmth Appeal, demonstrating positive contribution to the community by way of charitable activities: HB242.
6. Based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal accepts that the Applicant has made some positive contribution to the Australian community in the 48 years she has lived in Australia: paragraph 8.3(2)(a)(ii) of Direction 110.
7. The Applicant also has other family members in Australia including 13 nieces and nephews, 30-50 uncles and aunts and 30 plus cousins, though she is unsure as to the exact numbers: HB186.
8. Given the length of time the Applicant has resided in Australia (i.e. 48 years) the Tribunal accepts that she would have additional social links with some Australian citizens, permanent residents and people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia: paragraph 8.3(2)(b) of Direction 110.

Conclusion: The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia (paragraph 8.3 of Direction 110)

1. For the above reasons, the Tribunal considers that the third 'primary consideration' (the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia), in paragraph 8.3 of Direction 110, weighs heavily in favour of revocation.
2. However, the third 'primary consideration' (the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia), in paragraph 8.3 of Direction 110, which weighs heavily in favour of revocation, should not, in the Tribunal's view, outweigh the other 'primary considerations' which weigh heavily against revocation, namely the first 'primary consideration' (Protection of the Australian community), in paragraph 8.1 of Direction 110, and the fifth 'primary consideration' (Expectations of the Australian community), in paragraph 8.5 of Direction 110.

FOURTH PRIMARY CONSIDERATION: THE BEST INTERESTS OF MINOR CHILDREN IN AUSTRALIA AFFECTED BY THE DECISION (PARAGRAPH 8.4 OF DIRECTION 110)

1. Informed by the 'Principles' set out in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110, the Tribunal must determine whether non-revocation under s 501CA of the Migration Act is or is not in the best interests of a child under 18 years old who, at the time when the decision is expected to be made, is affected by the decision: paragraph 8.4(1) and (2) of Direction 110. If there are two or more relevant children, the best interests of each child should be given individual consideration to the extent that their interests may differ: paragraph 8.4(3) of Direction 110.
2. Paragraph 8.4(4) of Direction 110, states that in considering the best interests of the child, the Tribunal must consider the following factors, where relevant:

(a) the nature and duration of the relationship between the child and the non-citizen. Less weight should generally be given where the relationship is non-parental, and/or there is no existing relationship and/or there have been long periods of absence or limited meaningful contact; > > (b) the extent to which the non-citizen is likely to play a positive parental role in the future, taking into account the length of time until the child turns 18 and including any Court orders relating to parental access and care arrangements; > > (c) the impact of the non-citizen's prior conduct, and any likely future conduct, and whether that conduct has, or will have a negative impact on the child; > > (d) the likely effect that any separation from the non-citizen would have on the child, taking into account the non-citizen's ability to maintain contact with the child in other ways; > > (e) whether there are other persons who already fulfil a parental role in relation to the child; > > (f) any known views of the child (with those views being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child); > > (g) evidence that the child has been, or is at risk of being, subject to, or exposed to, family violence perpetrated by the non-citizen, or has otherwise been abused or neglected by the non-citizen in any way, whether physically, sexually or mentally; and > > (h) evidence that the child has suffered or experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from the non-citizen's conduct: paragraph 8.4(4) of Direction 110.

3. The Applicant has 11 minor grandchildren and one minor niece in Australia: HB183 and the Applicant's oral evidence at the hearing.
4. The evidence indicates that the Applicant generally has a close relationship with her grandchildren and that it would impact them greatly if she is deported as she is the only grandparent they know and see on a regular basis: HB184 and paragraph 8.4(4)(a)-(b) and (d)-(f) of Direction 110.
5. However, as contended by the Respondent:

(a) while the Applicant likely provides some support to her 11 grandchildren and one niece, the relationship is non-parental: paragraph 8.4(4)(f) of Direction 110;

(b) the Applicant's incarceration has already resulted in physical absence from the children: paragraph 8.4(4)(a) of Direction 110; and

(c) the Applicant can continue to maintain contact with her grandchildren and niece electronically (including by phone), as she has done whilst incarcerated: paragraph 8.4(4)(d) of Direction 110 and HB13 - HB14.

1. Further, in light of the material received under summons from WA Police indicating reports of 'family violence' perpetrated by the Applicant whilst her minor grandchild was in the home, which incidents the Applicant accepted occurred in her oral evidence at the hearing, the Tribunal considers that this consideration should be attributed limited weight in favour of revocation: paragraph 8.4(4)(g) of Direction 110.
2. For the above reasons, the Tribunal finds overall that the third 'primary consideration' (The best interests of minor children affected by the decision), in paragraph 8.4 of Direction 110, carries limited weight in favour of revocation.
3. However, the fourth 'primary consideration' (The best interests of minor children affected by the decision), in paragraph 8.4 of Direction 110, which, overall, carries limited weight in favour of revocation, should not, in the Tribunal's view, outweigh the other 'primary considerations' which weigh heavily against revocation, namely the first 'primary consideration' (Protection of the Australian community), in paragraph 8.1 of Direction 110, and the fifth 'primary consideration' (Expectations of the Australian community), in paragraph 8.5 of Direction 110.

FIFTH PRIMARY CONSIDERATION: EXPECTATIONS OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY (PARAGRAPH 8.5 OF DIRECTION 110)

Informed by the 'Principles' set out in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110, paragraph 8.5 of Direction 110 provides that the Tribunal must consider the expectations of the 'Australian Community'. Paragraph 8.5(1) of Direction 110 states:

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

The first sentence of paragraph 8.5(1), 'The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia', reflects the rule of law as it applies to both citizens and non-citizens.[23] The remainder of paragraph 8.5(1) of Direction 110 sets out the expectations of the Australian community 'as a norm'. The effect of this is to deem what the expectations of the Australian community are and thereby preclude the Tribunal from undertaking any assessment of what, in any factual circumstances, the actual expectations of the Australian community might be.[24] That proposition is encapsulated in paragraph 8.5(4) of Direction 110, which provides:

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

The utility of this approach by the Australian Government, to assist decision-makers, is obvious. Paragraph 8.5(2) also provides guidance by stating:

In addition,.....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... continue to hold a visa. In particular, the Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they raise serious character concerns through conduct, in Australia, or elsewhere, of the following kind:

Relevantly, for present purposes (i.e. given that the majority of the Applicant's 'very serious' conduct/offending is drug related), paragraph 8.5(3) of Direction 110 states:

The above expectations of the Australian community apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community. > > (emphasis added)

Given the 'very serious' nature of the Applicant's repeated and prolonged drug (and other) offending, the Tribunal considers that the Australian community would expect the Applicant should not continue to hold a visa: paragraph 8.5(2) of Direction 110. 6. Further, as the Applicant's criminal history contains a conviction that falls within those described in paragraph 8.5(2)(c) of Direction 110, being the 'aggravated burglary' charge committed with a child in the home, the nature of the offence is such that the Australian community expects the Applicant should not hold a visa. 7. For the above reasons, the Tribunal considers that the fifth 'primary consideration' (Expectations of the Australian community), in paragraph 8.5 of Direction 110, weighs heavily against revocation.

FIRST OTHER CONSIDERATION: LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE DECISION (PARAGRAPH 9.1 OF DIRECTION 110)

Decision-makers should be mindful that unlawful non-citizens are, in accordance with section 198, liable to removal from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable, in the circumstances specified in s 198 of the Migration Act, and in the meantime, detention under s 189, noting also that s 197C(1) of the Migration Act provides that, for the purposes of s 198 of the Migration Act, it is irrelevant whether Australia has non-refoulement obligations in respect of an unlawful citizen.

1. That is, in considering the legal consequences of its decision whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen's visa, paragraph 9.1(1) of Direction 110 requires the Tribunal must have regard to the statutory framework in which the power to revoke a mandatory cancellation decision exists, including the direct and immediate consequences of an exercise of the power, including any decision under s 105 of the ART Act.[25]
2. There are three major adverse consequences of visa refusal or cancellation under s 501 of the Migration Act and related provisions, which can be avoided by a positive decision to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen's visa, as follows:

(a) a prohibition, within the migration zone, on applying for other types of visas under s 501E of the Migration Act (other than a protection visa or a bridging (removal pending) visa); [26] > > (b) refusal/cancellation of other visa applications/visas under s 501F of the Migration Act; and > > (c) possible periods of exclusion and special return criteria under s 503 of the Migration Act and SRC 5001 and 5002 in Sch 5 to the Migration Regulations. This includes permanent exclusion where SRC 5001 applies unless the Minister acts personally to grant a permanent visa to the person under s 195A of the Migration Act.

3. The Applicant ticked 'yes' in her 'Personal Circumstances Form', received by the Department on 1 May 2023, in response to the question 'Do you have any concerns or fears about what would happen to you if you were to return to your country of citizenship': HB191. Her stated concerns or fears as follows:

...Homelessness, Financial difficulties, Having to go to a country foreign to me and not being able to see my family, children and grandchildren: HB191.

4. There is otherwise nothing on the material to suggest that Australia's non-refoulement obligations are enlivened in respect of the Applicant. However, to the extent that any non-refoulement obligations may be advanced, it is open to the Applicant to make an application for a protection visa, during which any claim regarding Australia's non-refoulement obligations would be fully considered: paragraph 9.1.2(2) of Direction 110 and Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs (2022) 96 ALJR 497; [2022] HCA 17 at [30] per Kiefel CJ, Keane, Gordon and Steward JJ.
5. If the Applicant applies for a protection visa, she would not be liable for removal until the protection visa application is finally determined: s 198(5A) of the Migration Act. Further, if the outcome of the protection visa process is that a protection finding is made in relation to the Applicant, she would not be liable for removal from Australia unless one of the events in s 197C(3)(c) of the Migration Act takes place. Accordingly, it is open to the Tribunal to defer the assessment of any non-refoulement obligations. However, because the Applicant has not applied for a protection visa, s 197C(3) of the Migration Act is not presently engaged, and the immediate legal effect of the Tribunal's decision affirming the decision to mandatorily cancel the Applicant's visa, would be that she is liable for removal to New Zealand pursuant to s 198 of the Migration Act.
6. The legal consequence of the Tribunal's decision not to revoke the Visa Cancellation Decision is that the Applicant would be indefinitely excluded from entering Australia, by virtue of the Special Residence Criteria in cl 5001(c) of Schedule 5 to the Migration Regulations. However, that legal consequence is a matter that is brought to account, and inherent in, the other considerations in Direction 110.[27] As such, the Tribunal should not give additional weight to this practical consequence.
7. Similarly, any practical consequences that any decision may have on the Applicant's financial circumstances and relationship with her family are already taken into account under the strength, nature and duration of her ties to Australia or the extent of impediments if removed, and further consideration of that matter, either here or as an additional 'other consideration', would result in double-counting.
8. In circumstances where the Applicant's removal and exclusion from Australia are the intended purpose of the statutory scheme, the Tribunal affords neutral weight in relation to revocation to this first 'other consideration' (Legal consequences of the decision) in paragraph 9.1 of Direction 110.

SECOND OTHER CONSIDERATION: EXTENT OF IMPEDIMENTS IF REMOVED (PARAGRAPH 9.2 OF DIRECTION 110)

1. Paragraph 9.2 of Direction 110 provides that the Tribunal must consider:

...the extent of any impediments that the non-citizen may face if removed from Australia to their home country, in establishing themselves and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country), taking into account: > > a) the non-citizen's age and health; > > b) whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers; and

1. any social, medical and/or economic support available to the Applicant in their country.

1. The Applicant is 55 years old. In her oral evidence at the hearing, the Applicant referred to the fact that she has 'liver and kidney problems' but did not adduce documentary medical evidence to support this: HB190 and paragraph 9.2(1)(a) of Direction 110. In a written statement, the Applicant also refers to 'depression/anxiety, feeling helpless, hiding how much of a dark place' she was in: HB198. However, there is no medical evidence before the Tribunal to support this.

1. As the Tribunal observed in VKTT and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2020] AATA 649 (VKTT) at [428]:

Australians and New Zealanders both speak the English language and are culturally almost indistinguishable. The legal and political structures of both societies are similar as are the medical and social welfare systems.

2. The Tribunal considers that the Applicant will not experience substantial language or cultural barriers in New Zealand. Australians and New Zealanders both speak the English language and are culturally almost indistinguishable: VKTT paragraph 9.2(1)(b) of Direction 110.

1. The Applicant states that she does not have any familial support in New Zealand and it is a foreign country to her, where she believes she is at risk of 'homelessness': HB191.
2. The Tribunal acknowledges that the Applicant's support network is stronger in Australia than the network she may have in New Zealand, noting she arrived in Australia at the age of seven, has lived in Australia for a total of 48 years and her immediate family in Australia include her father, step-mother, three sisters, seven children and 11 grandchildren: HB186 The Applicant also has other family members in Australia, including 13 nieces and nephews, 30 to 50 uncles and aunts and 30 or more cousins, although she is unsure of the exact numbers: HB186. The Applicant has numerous connections in the Perth community.
3. In contrast, the Applicant states that she only has a couple of uncles (on her biological mother's side) and several cousins (on her father's side) who remain in New Zealand. However, she has only been back to New Zealand twice since arriving in Australia, aged six turning seven and does not know these relatives: HB138.

1. The Applicant will have access to the same level of medical support (i.e. to treat her liver, kidney, anxiety and depression issues) as that generally available to other citizens in New Zealand: VKTT.

1. As stated above, the Applicant contends that if she returns to New Zealand she will face financial difficulties and is at risk of 'homelessness': HB191. The social welfare systems in Australia and New Zealand are similar: VKTT. As a New Zealand citizen, the Applicant will be able to access the same level of economic support, through New Zealand's social welfare system, as that generally available to other New Zealand citizens.
2. The Applicant has completed up to Year 10 in high school in Australia: HB189.
3. The Applicant's employment history in Australia is as follows:
   • Cook - Malibu Fish and Chips, Safety Bay, Rockingham (from 2012 to 2019); and
   • Cook - RSL, Port Kennedy (from 2020 to 2021): HB189
4. The Applicant has also volunteered at a Salvation Army soup kitchen in Rockingham, serving meals to the homeless: HB190.
5. Prior to her most recent incarceration, the Applicant was employed, for two years, with Crown Cleaning, an industrial cleaning company: HB138.
6. The Applicant has completed the following employment related courses in Australia:
   • Workplace health and safety;
   • Certificate II and III in Cleaning operations;
   • Certificate I in EGE;
   • Certificate II in Emergency medical service first response;
   • Certificate II in Furniture making;
   • Certificate II in Resources and Infrastructure work preparation;
   • Certificate I Sport and recreation;
   • Foodstars;
   • Certificate II in Business;
   • White card; and
   • Working with heights: HB188.
7. The Tribunal considers that the Applicant has transferable skills and work experience which can lead to employment and a productive life in New Zealand and does not accept that she is at risk of 'homelessness', in New Zealand, as contended by her: HB191.

Conclusion: Extent of impediments if removed (paragraph 9.2 of Direction 110)

1. The Tribunal readily acknowledges that the Applicant may face some practical, financial and emotional hardship upon her return to New Zealand, due to separation from her family and social ties in Australia and re-establishing herself in an unfamiliar country without her current social support network. However, the Tribunal considers that this should be afforded limited weight in favour of revocation, especially in circumstances where the cultural, language and social variances between Australia and New Zealand are virtually indistinguishable, where there are comparable standards of health care and welfare and the Applicant has transferable skills and work experience which could lead to employment and a productive life in New Zealand: paragraph 9.2(1)(c) of Direction 110.
2. As stated above, the second 'other consideration' is directed at whether a person can establish themselves and maintain 'basic living standards' if removed from Australia to their home country: paragraph 9.2(1) of Direction 110. On the evidence before it, the Applicant will be able to establish herself and maintain 'basic living standards' if removed from Australia to New Zealand: paragraph 9.2(1) of Direction 110.
3. For the above reasons, the Tribunal considers that the Applicant would be able to establish himself and maintain 'basic living standards' if removed from Australia to New Zealand and, therefore, the second 'other consideration' (Extent of impediments if removed), in paragraph 9.2 of Direction 110, carries limited weight in favour of revocation.

THIRD OTHER CONSIDERATION: IMPACT ON AUSTRALIAN BUSINESS INTERESTS (PARAGRAPH 9.3 OF DIRECTION 110)

1. Paragraph 9.3(1) of Direction 110 provides that the Tribunal must consider any impact on Australian business interests if the non-citizen is not allowed to remain in Australia, noting that an employment link would generally only be given weight where the decision under s 501 or s 501CA 'would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project, or delivery of an important service in Australia.'
2. The Applicant has not raised any possible claims which could result in an impact to Australian businesses, significantly compromising the delivery of a major project or important service in Australia.
3. Consequently, the Tribunal considers that the third 'other consideration' (Impact on Australian business interests), in paragraph 9.3 of Direction 110, carries neutral weight in relation to revocation.

1. For the above reasons, in relation to the five 'primary considerations' (in section 8 of Part 2 to Direction 110), the Tribunal concludes:

(a) Protection of the Australian community (paragraph 8.1 of Direction 110) - weighs heavily against revocation; > > (b) Family violence committed by the non-citizen (paragraph 8.2 of Direction 110) - weighs moderately against revocation; > > (c) The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia (paragraph 8.3 of Direction 110) - weighs moderately in favour of revocation; > > (d) Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision (paragraph 8.4 of Direction 110) - carries limited weight in favour of revocation; and > > (e) expectations of the Australian community (paragraph 8.5 of Direction 110) - weighs heavily against revocation.

2. For the above reasons, in relation to the three 'other considerations' (in section 9 of Part 2 to Direction 110), the Tribunal concludes:

(a) Legal consequences of the decision (paragraph 9.1 of Direction 110) - carries neutral weight in relation to revocation; > > (b) Extent of impediments if removed (paragraph 9.2 of Direction 110) - carries limited weight in favour of revocation; and > > (c) Impact on Australian business interests (paragraph 9.3 of Direction 110) - carries neutral weight in relation to revocation.

3. Informed by the 'Principles' in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110, and having weighed the considerations in favour of revocation and the considerations against revocation, the Tribunal is not satisfied, on balance, there is 'another reason' why the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa should be revoked.
4. In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal notes that, as stated above, paragraph 7(2) of Direction 110 states that the first 'primary consideration' (Protection of the Australian community), in paragraph 8.1 of Direction 110, is generally given greater weight than the other four 'primary considerations' and that, otherwise, the 'primary considerations' (in section 8 of Part 2 of Direction 110) should generally be given greater weight than the three 'other considerations' (in section 9 of Part 2 of Direction 110).

1. For the above reasons, the Tribunal affirms the decision under review (i.e. the Non-revocation Decision).

I certify that the preceding two hundred and twenty four (224) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member Chelsea Lyford

Misuse Of Drugs Act 1981; 6 (1)(c) Z

Possession of a Prohibited Drug With Intent to Sell or Supply (Methylamphetamine); Misuse Of Drugs Act 1981; 6 (1)(a) O

Offer to sell/supply a prohibited drug to another (Methylamphetamine).;

Misuse Of Drugs Act 1981; 6 (1)(c) Z

Offer to sell/supply a prohibited drug to another (Methylamphetamine).;

Misuse Of Drugs Act 1981; 6 (1)(c) Z

[Counts 1]IMPRISONMENT: 3 Months CUMULATIVE FROM 25-SEP-2020. -

Offer to sell/supply a prohibited drug to another (Methylamphetamine).;

Misuse Of Drugs Act 1981; 6 (1)(c) Z

[Counts 1]IMPRISONMENT: 2 Months CONCURRENT FROM 25-SEP-2020.

Offer to sell/supply a prohibited drug to another (Methylamphetamine).;

Misuse Of Drugs Act 1981; 6 (1)(c) Z

[Counts 1]IMPRISONMENT: 9 Months CONCURRENT FROM 25-SEP-2020.

Attempt to Possess Prohibited Drugs with Intent to Sell or Supply; Misuse

[Counts 1]IMPRISONMENT: 9 Months CONCURRENT FROM 25-SEP-2020.

Possession of a Prohibited Drug With Intent to Sell or Supply (Methylamphetamine); Misuse Of

[Counts 1]IMPRISONMENT: 2 Months CONCURRENT FROM 25-SEP-2020.

Offer to sell/supply a prohibited drug to another (Methylamphetamine).;

Misuse Of Drugs Act 1981; 6 (1)(c) Z

[Counts 1]IMPRISONMENT: 2 Months CONCURRENT FROM 25-SEP-2020.

No authority to drive-Never held Aust lic & is disqualified

[Counts 1]FINE: $1000; Mdl Disqualified: 9 mths - Cumulative

Permit use of premises for use of drug or plant; Misuse Of Drugs Act 1981; 5

[Counts 1]COMM BASED ORDER: 1 Years CONCURRENT FROM 10-

[Counts 1]COMM BASED ORDER: 1 Years CONCURRENT FROM 10-

No authority to drive-Never held Aust lic & is disqualified

[Counts 1]SUSP IMP ORDER: Original Term: 7 Months Suspended for

Possess a prohibited drug (Methylamphetamine); Misuse Of

Drove or permitted vehicle with false plate to be driven

[Counts 1]Mdl Disqualified: 1 yr - Cumulative; IMPRISONMENT: 6

[Counts 1]IMPRISONMENT: 8 Months CONCURRENT FROM 24-MAR-2017.

Possessed drug paraphernalia in or on which there was a prohibited drug or

plant; Misuse Of Drugs Act 1981; 7B

Possess a Prohibited Drug (Cannabis); Misuse Of Drugs Act 1981; 6 (2) B

Possess a prohibited drug (Methylamphetamine); Misuse Of

Carried (possessed) an article with intent to cause fear that someone;

Weapons Act 1999; 8 (1)(b)

Possessed a prohibited weapon.; Weapons Act 1999; 6 (1)(b) B

[Counts 1]IMPRISONMENT: 14 Days CONCURRENT FROM 01-JUL-2014.

Possession of Prohibited Drugs with Intent to Sell or Supply (Cannabis);

Misuse Of Drugs Act (WA) 1981; 6 (1)

[Counts 1]IMPRISONMENT: 12 Months CONCURRENT FROM 01-

Possessed a controlled weapon.; Weapons Act 1999; 7 (1) A

[Counts 1]IMPRISONMENT: 7 Days CONCURRENT FROM 01-JUL-2014.

Possessed drug paraphernalia in or on which there was a prohibited drug

or plant; Misuse Of Drugs Act (WA)

[Counts 1]IMPRISONMENT: 5 Days CONCURRENT FROM 01-JUL-2014.

Possession of a Prohibited Drug With Intent to Sell or Supply

[Counts 1]IMPRISONMENT: 12 Months CONCURRENT FROM 01-

[Counts 1]IMPRISONMENT: 12 Months CONCURRENT FROM 01-

Carried (possessed) an article with intent to cause fear that someone;

Weapons Act 1999; 8 (1)(b)

[Counts 1]IMPRISONMENT: 7 Days CONCURRENT FROM 01-JUL-2014.

[Counts 1]IMPRISONMENT: 12 Months CONCURRENT FROM 01-

[Counts 1]IMPRISONMENT: 8 Months CONCURRENT FROM 01-JUL-2014.

No Driver's licence (Disqualified from Holding or Obtaining)

[Counts 1]IMPRISONMENT: 3 MTHS - Concurrent; Mdl Disqualified: 9 mths;

No Driver's licence (Disqualified from Holding or Obtaining)

[Counts 1]IMPRISONMENT: 3 MTHS - Concurrent; Mdl Disqualified: 9 mths -

[Counts 1]IMPRISONMENT: 6 MTHS - Cumulative; Mdl Disqualified: 9 mths -

[Counts 1]IMPRISONMENT: 6 MTHS - Concurrent; Mdl Disqualified: 9 mths -

No Driver's licence (Disqualified from Holding or Obtaining)

[Counts 1]IMPRISONMENT: 3 MTHS - Concurrent; Mdl Disqualified: 9 mths -

No Driver's licence (Disqualified from Holding or Obtaining)

[Counts 1]IMPRISONMENT: 3 mths - Concurrent; Mdl Disqualified: 9 mths -

Exceed speed limit in a speed zone; Between 20 and 29km/h

[Counts 1]IMPRISONMENT: 3 MTHS - Concurrent; Mdl Disqualified: 9 mths -

Possession of a Prohibited Drug With Intent to Sell or Supply (MDMA)

[Counts 1]IMPRISONMENT: 12 MTHS CONC FROM 19.2.09

Possession of a Prohibited Drug With Intent to Sell or Supply

[Counts 1]FINE: $1200; Mdl Disqualified: 9 mths; (Prev Pres) -

Possession of Prohibited Drugs with Intent to Sell or Supply

Possession of Prohibited Drugs with Intent to Sell or Supply

No Driver's Licence (Cancelled- Disqualification Expired)

[Counts 1]FINE: $400; MDL CANC & DISQ 9 MTHS CUM (PREV PRESC)

[Counts 1]FINE: $1000; MDL CANC & DISQ 9 MTHS CUM (PREV PRESC)

[Counts 1]FINE: $2500; MDL CANC & DISQ 18 MTHS CUM(PREV PRESC)

[Counts 1]FINE: $800; MDL DISQ AND CANC - PRESCRIBED - 6 MTHS

[Counts 1]FINE: $300; 1ST OFFENCE - MDL DISQ THREE MONTHS -

[1] Khalil v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 151; (2019) 271 FCR 326 at [41] and [48].

[2] The Hearing Book, lodged with the Tribunal on behalf of the Respondent (comprising 550 pages), was marked as 'Exhibit 1' on the first day of this review application on 13 October 2025 (HB).

[3] Re Harrison and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] AATA 47; (2009) 106 ALD 666 at [63].

[4] Gaspar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) 153 ALD 338.

[5] Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (ART Act), s 56(1)(a); Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 (Drake (No 2)) at 636; Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2008] HCA 31; (2008) 235 CLR 286 at [140]; CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 138 at [35].

[6] Au v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 125 at [21]-[26].

[7] See also Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v Viane (2021) 274 CLR 398 at [13]-[15]; Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs v McQueen (2024) 94 ALJR 594 at [6].

[8] See LPDT v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 12; (2024) 98 ALJR 610 at [33].

[9] See Minister for Home Affairs v G [2019] FCAFC 79; (2019) 266 FCR 569; Lasalo v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCAFC 82 at [27].

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

[11] https://minister.homeaffairs.gov.au/AndrewGiles/Pages/ministerial-direction-110-signed-07062024.aspx. See also Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), s 15AB.

[12] Falzon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] HCA 2; (2018) 262 CLR 333 at [94].

[13] For example, see Kanara and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] AATA 132 at [32] per SM Toohey.

[14] Minister for Immigration Multicultural Affairs v Ali [2000] FCA 1385; (2000) 106 FCR 313 at [42]; Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015) 256 CLR 203 at [5], [44], [102], and [104].

[15] Re Harrison v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2006] AATA 47 at [63].

[16] BNY23 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 608 at [107]; Siale v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FCA 608 at [34]; Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Peralta Montes [2025] FCA 667 at [89]-[90].

[17] See Re RRRB and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] ARTA 471 at [74].

[18] Bartlett and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration) [2017] AATA 1561 at [33]-[36].

[19] https://www.homeaffairs.gov/au?about-us-subsite/files/homeaffairs-illicit-drug-action-plan.pdf

[20] Main v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 446 at [30].

[21] Main v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 446 at [30].

[22] Re MBBG and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] ARTA 53 at [80]-[86].

[23] FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185 (FYBR) at [69]-[70].

[24] FYBR at [67] and [92]-[93].

[25] NBMZ v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCAFC 38; (2014) 220 FCR 1 at [3], [9] and [10]; Taulahi v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 177; (2016) 246 FCR 146 at [84] and [88].

[26] See also s 46(1)(d) of the Migration Act.

[27] Dalzell and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2024] ARTA 17 at [134]-[135].