Character requirements > > Entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege. You must obey the law and not engage in criminal activity. > > Your visa may be cancelled for a number of reasons, including if you have a substantial criminal record or behave in a way that is a risk to somebody in the Australian community. > > More information: immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/help-support/meeting-our-requirements/character

1. On Friday, 28 October 2022, the Applicant hosted a Halloween party through an entertainment business that he worked with, at the Badlands Bar in Perth.[7] Several of the Nepali community in Perth attended the event, including the Applicant's then housemates (Messrs RR and AKK).[8] The party ended around midnight, and the Applicant and his housemates went clubbing.[9]
2. During the night, the Applicant consumed somewhere between ten and twelve alcoholic drinks.[10]
3. At about 2.30 am on 29 October 2022, the Applicant and his housemates went to the City Garden Chinese Restaurant on Roe Street in Northbridge.[11] They were sitting in the alfresco area, ordered food, and were drinking soju.[12]
4. Between 2.45 am and 3.00 am, a female associate of the Applicant (Ms C) arrived and sat down with the Applicant and his roommates.[13] Her friends, including Mr EM, arrived shortly thereafter.[14] There was an interaction between the Applicant, his roommates, and Mr EM.[15] An argument occurred, which involved Mr EM saying something to the Applicant about the Applicant's parents.[16] This comment escalated the interaction and there was shouting between the men.[17] Eventually, Mr EM was taken into the restaurant by other members of his party.[18] This was no later than 3.20 am.[19]
5. On occasion, the Applicant and Mr EM continued to gesture to one another, including the Applicant wagging his finger at Mr EM in response to him giving the Applicant the middle finger.[20]
6. At approximately 3.43 am, Mr EM and Ms C leave the restaurant.[21] The Applicant yelled out to Mr EM and quickly got up from where he was sitting and approached them, to about one metre away from Mr EM.[22] The Applicant's housemates stood up with him.[23] Words were exchanged, and Mr EM told the Applicant to 'fuck off'.[24] The Applicant then punched Mr EM in the left side of his jaw with his right fist.[25] Mr EM was not expecting the punch or contact, and the punch was very forceful.[26] The Applicant's housemates then joined in on a physical attack on Mr EM, which lasted for approximately 30 seconds.[27] Mr RR started tussling with Mr EM and threw a punch at him.[28] The Applicant tried to throw a further punch but was initially blocked by Mr RR before he was able to throw and connect further punches, in conjunction with Mr RR.[29] Both the Applicant and Mr RR continued to punch Mr EM repeatedly to the head and body, as he retreated through the alfresco area and tried to defend himself.[30] Mr AKK joined in, and commenced striking Mr EM to the face.[31]
7. At this point, Ms C tried to intervene, before Mr EM and her fell to the ground.[32] Whilst they were on the ground, the Applicant and Mr AKK continued to assault Mr EM, before being pulled away.[33]
8. The Applicant returned to the table where he had been eating and drinking, and retrieved his bag.[34] When Mr EM got up from the ground, the Applicant started walking in his direction.[35] He brought his right arm back, as if he were about to throw another punch, but he did not throw any further punches.[36]
9. The CCTV footage available from the night had audio recording, which included two phrases from the Applicant to Mr EM at that stage, 'what did you say, boy?' and 'what you said about my parents'.[37] These were clearly references to the earlier interaction.[38]
10. The Applicant and his housemates left the area thereafter.[39]
11. Mr EM was taken to Royal Perth Hospital and suffered a fractured jaw (anterior and posterior left mandible fracture).[40] He was admitted as a patient and had surgery to repair his jaw the following day.[41] The injuries were of such a nature as to cause or be likely to cause permanent injury to health. Without medical treatment, the likely permanent injuries included 'failure of bone union, malnutrition secondary to malocclusion, and altered facial sensation.'[42] He was discharged from hospital on 31 October 2022.[43]

1. On 10 November 2022, the Applicant sent text messages to Ms C. In those messages, he said 'I just wanna apologies for the harm I caused him... and it was just my reaction on what he said or mentioned on my religion and parents As we both were intoxicated I am not that person, didn't intend to put him in that situation ... I didn't know he had to get hospitalised if I had known I would have followed him up.'[44]
2. The Applicant was subsequently identified by police and invited to attend the Perth Police Station on 11 November 2022, where he was arrested on suspicion of having committed grievous bodily harm.[45] He then voluntarily participated in an electronic record of interview (EROI).[46] In that EROI, the Applicant made some admissions.[47] He first told the detectives that in the second interaction with Mr EM (after he had exited the Chinese restaurant) he felt threatened, like Mr EM was going to hit him, so he tried to push him away and Mr EM fell.[48] After being shown an extract of the CCTV footage, he identified himself and the victim and agreed with the detectives that Mr EM was not being physically aggressive towards him prior to the punch.[49]

1. On 11 November 2022, the Applicant was charged with grievous bodily harm and refused police bail.[50] Later that day, the Applicant was granted bail by the Perth Magistrates Court.[51] He remained in the Australian community, on bail, until his trial before Curwood DCJ and a jury in the Perth District Court between 23 and 26 July 2024.[52]
2. At trial, the Applicant ran a positive defence of self-defence. He also hinted at provocation, which the Tribunal notes is not a defence to grievous bodily harm.[53]
3. The jury returned a guilty verdict on 26 July 2024, and judgment of conviction was entered by Curwood DCJ.[54]
4. Before the Tribunal, the Applicant admitted that he took the matter to trial in an attempt to avoid the consequences of imprisonment and potential deportation. The Tribunal was told that the charges against Messrs AKK and RR were inexplicably discontinued by the State and the Applicant had received legal advice to the effect that the State might find it difficult to prove who threw the punch that caused the broken jaw.
5. The Applicant now accepts that taking the matter to trial was a mistake, and that his actions on 29 October 2022 were not justifiable, including because he was intoxicated or because comments may have been made which he found to be offensive.
6. The Applicant was remanded in custody following his conviction.[55]
7. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant was granted the Bridging Visa A two days later, on 28 July 2024, and in association with an application made for a second Temporary Graduate Visa.[56]
8. On 2 September 2024, the Applicant was sentenced to 24 months' imprisonment by Curwood DCJ, backdated to 26 July 2024.[57] He was made eligible for parole.[58]

Visa cancellation, representations seeking revocation and merits review

1. On 17 September 2024, the Bridging Visa A was mandatorily cancelled under s 501(3A) of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Migration Act).[59]
2. The Applicant was notified of the mandatory cancellation decision by hand on 3 October 2025.[60] He made representations to the Minister seeking revocation of that decision on or about 11 October 2024.[61]
3. On 11 July 2025, the Prisoners Review Board of Western Australia (PRBWA) decided to conditionally release the Applicant on parole, from 25 July 2025.[62] The parole term expires on 25 July 2026.[63]
4. On 25 July 2025, the Applicant was detained under s 189(1) of the Migration Act and taken to Yongah Hill Immigration Detention Centre (YHIDC).
5. On 21 October 2025, the Minister's delegate refused to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision, finding that the Applicant did not pass the 'character test' and that they were not satisfied that there was 'another reason' to revoke the cancellation decision.[64]
6. The Applicant was notified of the reviewable decision by hand on 21 October 2025.[65] This notification package complied with the requirements of s 501G of the Migration Act and was a method of service prescribed by reg 5.02 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (Migration Regulations) for persons in immigration detention.
7. The Applicant sought review of the delegate's decision, within time, on 27 October 2025.[66]
8. The Tribunal is required, by force of s 500(6L) of the Migration Act, to determine the review by 13 January 2026.

1. The parties appeared before the Tribunal on 7 and 8 January 2026. The hearing was conducted in a hybrid manner, with the Applicant appearing in-person and the Respondent appearing by video-link. The Applicant was self-represented and assisted by a Nepali interpreter. The Minister was represented by Mr Jarvis Kirstenfeldt of Sparke Helmore Lawyers.
2. The following documents were marked as exhibits:

(a) Joint Hearing Bundle, including the Minister's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (RSFIC), as updated on 17 December 2025 (383 pages) (Exhibit 1); > > (b) Signed acknowledgement of notification of decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision, dated 21 October 2025 (one page) (Exhibit 2); and > > (c) Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), DFAT Country Information Report for Nepal dated 1 March 2024 (DFAT Report) (36 pages) (Exhibit 3).

3. At hearing, the Applicant was advised, in simple terms, of his right to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination prior to his giving evidence.[67]
4. The Tribunal took oral evidence from the Applicant and his friend, Mr Anish Shrestha. Mr Shrestha's wife, Mrs Sita Shrestha, was not required for cross-examination by the Minister and her two statements, dated 20 March 2025 and 16 December 2025 respectively,[68] were admitted on that unchallenged basis.

1. The question for determination by the Tribunal is whether the decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's Bridging Visa A is the 'correct or preferable decision' on the material before the Tribunal.[69]
2. Section 501CA(4) of the Migration Act provides that a mandatory cancellation may be revoked if:

(a) the Applicant makes representations in accordance with the invitation to do so given by the Minister under s 501CA(3); and > > (b) the decision-maker is satisfied that: > > > (i) the Applicant passes the character test (as defined by s 501); or > > > > (ii) there is another reason why the mandatory cancellation should be revoked.

3. In Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 27; (2022) 275 CLR 582 (Plaintiff M1/2021), the majority of the High Court described this section of the Migration Act as conferring 'a wide discretionary power' to revoke a mandatory cancellation if the decision-maker (whether the Minister, their delegate, or the Tribunal on review of a delegate's decision) is satisfied that there is 'another reason' why the cancellation should be revoked.[70] The majority held that the assessment of whether there was, in fact, 'another reason' was to be undertaken by reference to the representations made by the Applicant.[71]
4. In reviewing decisions of this kind, the Tribunal must comply with the Direction given by the Minister under s 499(1) of the Migration Act.[72] This is a legislative constraint on the Tribunal's process of reasoning.[73] However, as the Full Court identified in Singh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (2023) 296 FCR 582,[74] the principles stated in Drake (No 2)[75] regarding the application of governmental policy, and the Tribunal's ability to depart from it where appropriate, remain applicable.
5. Informed by the principles set out in cl 5.2 of the Direction, the Tribunal must 'take into account' the factors identified in cls 8 and 9 of the Direction (where relevant) in deciding the application.[76]
6. In this review, those relevant factors are:

(a) the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct; > > (b) the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia; > > (c) the expectations of the Australian community; > > (d) the legal consequences of the decision; > > (e) the extent of impediments if removed; and > > (f) impact on Australian business interests.

1. The Applicant was notified of the mandatory cancellation decision on 3 October 2024 by hand and whilst he was in State custody.[77] This notice complied with requirements of ss 501CA(3) and 501CA(3A) of the Migration Act, read with reg 2.55(3)(a) of the Migration Regulations.
2. Regulation 2.52(2)(b) provides that any representations seeking revocation of a mandatory cancellation decision must be made to the Minister within 28 days after the person is given notice of the mandatory cancellation.
3. Regulations 2.52(3) to 2.52(6) set out the way representations are to be made, including that they are to be in English (or accompanied by translation) and that they must include specified information, such as personal identifiers and 'a statement of the reasons on which the person relies to support the representations.'
4. The Applicant made representations seeking revocation of the cancellation decision within the specified timeframe. These are dated between 10 and 11 October 2024 and seem to have been 'dispatched' within the prison system within that permissible envelope of 28 days from notification. They were sent to the Minister's Department by facsimile on or about 29 October 2024. The representations complied with the content requirements of the Migration Regulations.
5. Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant made representations in accordance with the invitation for the purposes of s 501CA(4)(a) of the Migration Act.

1. The Tribunal must decide whether the Applicant passes the character test as defined by s 501 of the Migration Act.[78] Failure to pass the character test arises as a matter of law.[79]
2. Section 501(6)(a) of the Migration Act sets out that a person does not pass the character test if 'the person has a substantial criminal record (as defined by subsection (7))'. The term 'substantial criminal record' includes when 'the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more_'._[80]
3. On 2 September 2024, the Applicant was sentenced to 24 months' imprisonment by Curwood DCJ, sitting in the District Court of Western Australia at Perth.[81]
4. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant does not pass the character test found in s 501(6)(a) of the Migration Act because he has a 'substantial criminal record' as defined in s 501(7)(c) of the Migration Act.
5. The Tribunal is therefore not satisfied that the Applicant passes the character test for the purposes of s 501CA(4)(b)(i) of the Migration Act.

1. As the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant passes the character test, the Tribunal must then determine whether, having regard to the representations made by the Applicant, and to any relevant primary and other considerations contained within the Direction, there is 'another reason' why the cancellation decision should be revoked.

1. The Tribunal is required to consider whether the Australian community requires protection from harm said to have arisen from the criminal activity or other serious conduct engaged in by the Applicant to date, and from any risk of such harm arising in the future.[82] This is a two-stage process, requiring consideration of both the nature and seriousness of conduct to date, and the risk to the community if further offences are committed or the Applicant engages in other serious conduct.[83]
2. It should be noted at this juncture that the Tribunal is not sentencing the Applicant for his past deeds. That has already happened. Rather, the Tribunal must assess whether his 'continued presence here would be opposed to the safety and welfare of the nation'.[84]
3. The concept of 'risk', and whether it is 'unacceptable', under cl 8.1.2(1) of the Direction is not the same thing as the 'likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct'.[85] For this purpose, an 'unacceptable risk' is a risk which the Tribunal considers to be 'unacceptable' having regard to a variety of considerations, including:

(a) the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's criminal offending and other conduct to date (including the sentences imposed by the courts for a crime or crimes); > > (b) the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct; and > > (c) the nature of the harm that could be caused by further offending.

4. The Direction informs the Tribunal's risk assessment, at cls 5.2, 8.1(1), 8.1.1(1), and 8.1.2(1), by reiterating, amongst other things, that the Executive Government:

(a) is committed to 'protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens'; > > (b) considers identified types of conduct to be 'very serious' or 'serious'; and > > (c) considers that 'the Australian community's tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases.'

5. It follows that the 'risk' referred to in the balancing exercise contemplated by those clauses of the Direction is not any risk that an applicant may commit further criminal or other serious conduct, but is calibrated towards the Tribunal's assessment of the nature and degree of the harm said to be in prospect in the case at hand.

Nature and seriousness of the conduct to date

1. The Applicant arrived in Australia as an adult in March 2018. He did not have a criminal history abroad. His sole criminal offence or other serious conduct relied upon in this proceeding is the grievous bodily harm conviction.
2. This conviction relates to acts of 'senseless drunken violence' in the early hours of 29 October 2022 in the Northbridge entertainment district.[86] The facts of that night were summarised above.
3. The Applicant was sentenced to 24 months' imprisonment, and the maximum sentence was 10 years' imprisonment. A sentence of imprisonment is a sentence of last resort.[87]
4. As required by s 63A of the Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA), the District Court also made a lifetime violence restraining order against the Applicant and for the protection of Mr EM.[88] The Minister initially contended that the duration of that order reflected the very serious nature of the offending.[89] However, this submission was sensibly withdrawn by counsel for the Minister when he was taken to the terms of s 63A of the Restraining Orders Act.
5. The sentencing judge considered the offence to be 'serious', in the mid-range of seriousness but by no means the most serious type of offence of this kind.[90] His Honour remarked:

Violence in public places is a matter of genuine concern in the community. The courts must be seen to stand firmly against alcohol fuelled violence in public entertainment areas. ... Further, the offending can be characterised as a senseless incident of alcohol fuelled violence notorious in Northbridge in the early hours of the morning. The sentence imposed must leave no doubt as to the community's disapproval and public condemnation of this type of offending.[91]

6. The Direction similarly observes that the Australian Government and the Australian community view violent crimes 'very seriously'.[92]
7. Mr EM suffered a fractured jaw, for which he received surgery, and there was, thankfully, no evidence of long-term injury.[93]
8. The Applicant was made aware, in writing, about the consequences of criminal offending in terms of his migration status, including on 28 July 2022 (three months prior). He testified that he was aware of that potential consequence and asserted that the offence was 'out of character' and a one-off, which has not been repeated.
9. The factors in cls 8.1.1(1)(f), (g) and (i) of the Direction are not relevant.
10. For the above reasons, the Tribunal finds that the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's criminal offending and other serious conduct to date to be very serious.

Risk to the Australian community should the Applicant engage in further conduct

1. The Tribunal is required to have regard to the future risk that may be posed by the Applicant to the Australian community by considering, cumulatively, the nature of the harm to individuals or to the community should the Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct, and the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in such conduct.[94] There is no statutory constraint on the way that risk is assessed by the Tribunal other than that there must be a rational and probative basis for the assessment.[95]

1. The Minister identified the nature of harm to individuals, or the Australian community, should the Applicant re-offend, as 'physical and psychological harm and distress'.[96]
2. In Trompler v The State of Western Australia [2008] WASCA 265, Wheeler JA (with whom Buss JA agreed) observed that '... any grievous bodily harm is, by definition, a serious matter, it may range from a permanent injury which the particular complainant is able to accommodate, to a severe and life-threatening injury resulting in permanent disability' ([9]).
3. The offence of grievous bodily harm is effectively one which focuses upon the outcome, namely bodily injury of such a nature as to endanger, or be likely to endanger life, or to cause, or be likely to cause permanent injury to health.
4. The spectrum of conduct caught by the Criminal Code (WA) for acts of interpersonal violence spans from common assault to assault causing bodily harm, to wounding and grievous bodily harm, and then to unlawful killing another (including manslaughter and murder).
5. A range of short-term and long-term physical, psychological, economic, and social impacts have been associated with physical assaults, including:

(a) concussion, problems with memory or concentration, or traumatic brain injuries, scars and other physical markers; > > (b) depression, anxiety, fear, hypervigilance, and anger; > > (c) associated issues with occupational and educational functioning; and > > (d) greater reliance upon, and potential straining of, relationships with intimate partners, family, friends, and work colleagues.[97]

6. For the above reasons, the Tribunal finds that the nature of the harm to individuals or to the Australian community should the Applicant re-offend is variable, ranging from relatively minimal impact to potentially devastating impact. However, all violent assaults are inherently serious because such conduct has the potential to cause significant, if not catastrophic, harm.

1. The Applicant was living in the Western Australian community on bail between November 2022 and July 2024, without apparent issue.
2. On 2 September 2024, the Applicant was found by the sentencing judge to be at a low risk of re-offending and to have reasonable prospects of rehabilitation.[98]
3. The Applicant was subsequently assessed by the Department of Justice (WA) as having a low risk of re-offending.[99] Due to the length of his sentence and that risk profile, the Applicant was not considered to be eligible for any prison-based intervention programmes. However, he voluntarily completed the following courses in prison:

(a) Young Adult Community, Self-Discovery Course in January 2025;[100] > > (b) Narcotics Anonymous 12-step programme between January 2025 and May 2025;[101] > > (c) Alternatives to Violence Project WA Inc, Basic Workshop in Peaceful Pathways in February 2025;[102] and > > (d) Alternatives to Violence Project WA Inc, Advanced Workshop in Peaceful Pathways in April 2025.[103]

4. The Applicant was 'a compliant prisoner who has followed the rules and routine of prison and has maintained a positive employment record'.[104]
5. The Department of Justice were supportive of the Applicant being granted parole due to that good prison conduct, positive employment record, and confirmed accommodation and support with Mr and Mrs Shrestha.[105]
6. On 11 July 2025, the PRBWA granted the Applicant conditional release on parole. Their reasons for that decision were that:

The Board decided that [the Applicant's] release would present an acceptable risk to the safety of the community due to:

7. [His] participation in voluntary programmes, which demonstrates a motivation and willingness to address [his] behaviour. The Board notes that [he was] assessed as not requiring any intensive treatment programs in custody.
8. [He has] no prior criminal history.
9. The lessons learned from [his] first term of imprisonment and [his] first opportunity for parole supervision.
10. [His] prison conduct which demonstrates compliance with directions.
11. [His] parole plan which includes accommodation, confirmed employment and support from friends.
12. The fact the conditions of parole will further reduce the risk to the safety of the community.
13. The fact that [his] supervision for the remainder of [his] sentence in the community to monitor [his] behaviour, assist [his] reintegration and rehabilitation is likely to offer more protection to the community in the long term than [his] release without supervision at the end of [his] sentence.
14. The Board notes that [his] visa to remain in Australia has been cancelled. Nevertheless, if [he is] subsequently successful in the revocation of the cancellation of [his] visa, the Board determines that [his] release in Western Australia does not post an unacceptable risk to the safety of the community.[106]
15. The PRBWA imposed the following additional conditions on the Applicant's parole order:
    1. [He] must not commit an offence.
    2. [He] must not use or be in possession of any illicit drug, including cannabis.
    3. [He] must not leave or remain out of the State of Western Australia except with, and in accordance with, written permission of the CEO.
    4. To have no direct or indirect contact with the victim.
    5. To comply with the requirements of the lifetime Violence Restraining Order.
    6. To attend for random urinalysis for all illicit substances as directed by the Community Corrections Officer and provide a valid sample.
    7. Not to consume alcohol.
    8. Not to enter licensed premises except cafes, restaurants, sporting venues or grocery stores which may have a liquor licence, but no purchase of liquor is permitted at any venue.
    9. To submit to random breath testing as requested by Police.
    10. To attend programmes and counselling as directed.
    11. To engage in employment, training or job seeking as directed by the Community Corrections Officer.
    12. Not to change address without the prior approval of the Community Corrections Officer.
    13. If the [cancellation] of your visa is [revoked] before your sentence expiry date, to immediately advise the Prisoners Review Board in writing, details of your intended dates of release (or return to Australia) and an Australian address.
16. The Applicant's parole term expires on 25 July 2026.
17. In December 2025, while in immigration detention, the Applicant completed an online course dealing with anger management and conflict resolution.[107]
18. The Applicant's friend, Mr Shrestha, has offered the Applicant stable accommodation at his residence and full-time employment at his cleaning company.[108] That address was considered to be suitable by the Department of Justice.
19. The parties agreed that the evidence before the Tribunal indicated that the Applicant posed a low likelihood of re-offending. The dispute between them was whether the risk of recidivism was unacceptable.

Conclusion on the protection of the Australian community

1. The Tribunal finds the Applicant to pose a risk to the Australian community. It has found that:

(a) further involvement in criminal or other serious conduct has potential for significant harm; and > > (b) the Applicant poses low risk of re-offending in the reasonably foreseeable future.

2. The Direction contains policy guidance, at cls 5.2, 8.1(1), 8.1.2(1), to the effect that:

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 enter and/or remain in Australia is a privilege Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law-abiding, will respect important institutions, such as Australia's law enforcement framework, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community (cls 5.2(1), 8.1(1)); > > The safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government' (cls 5.2(2), 8.1(1)). 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 (cl 8.1(1)); > > 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 (cl 5.2(3)); > > 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 (cl 5.2(4)); > > Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa (cl 5.2(5)) > > Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the non-citizen's conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify ... revoking a mandatory cancellation (cl 5.2(7)); > > The inherent nature of certain conduct ... is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify ... 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 to the Australian community (cl 5.2(8)); and > > In considering the need to protect the Australian community ... from harm, decision-makers should have regard to the Government's view that the Australian community's tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. Some conduct and the harm that would be caused, if it were to be repeated, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable (cl 8.1.2(1)).

3. The Tribunal is authorised, but not bound, to give weight to the above policy guidance.[109] The Tribunal respectfully considers the policy considerations identified above to be appropriate, and to conform with the terms of the Migration Act and the nature of the power found in s 501 and its analogous provisions.
4. The Applicant arrived as an adult. Whilst he has been resident for 7 years, he has only ever held temporary permission to remain in this country, for the purposes of study and post-graduate work experience. It may be accepted that Australia has a low tolerance for senseless drunken violence by persons in the Applicant's circumstances. The Applicant contravened the expectation that he be law-abiding and not cause or threaten harm to the Australian community in October 2022. The Tribunal has found that the likelihood of its repetition is low.
5. The visa which was cancelled was a bridging visa granted in association with an application for the grant of a second temporary graduate visa. That second temporary graduate visa was taken to have been refused in September 2024 by operation of s 501F(2) of the Migration Act when the mandatory cancellation decision was made. If the cancellation decision was revoked by the Tribunal, the associated refusal decision is taken to have been set aside (s 501F(4)). However, the grant of a further temporary graduate visa is by no means guaranteed. The Department's website indicates that 90% of temporary graduate visa applications in the post-higher education work stream are processed within 62 days of application.[110] The Tribunal is not able to speculate how long the Applicant's visa application will, in fact, take to be processed. However, it is not likely that this will exceed six months' duration, given he applied for it in July 2024.
6. The Applicant's parole term ends on 25 July 2026. The Tribunal considers this to be significant, including because the Applicant will be supervised by the State until then and because he will be subject to the additional conditions set out above, which includes reporting and programme conditions aimed at the Applicant's outstanding treatment needs. It should also be noted that the Applicant was previously compliant with the conditions of his bail for 20 months prior to his conviction.
7. Any future temporary graduate visa will not be subject to any conditions that may be relevant to risk. Similarly, the Tribunal does not have the power to impose any conditions on the Bridging Visa A.
8. The seriousness of the potential harm caused by further violent offending should not be underestimated and the Tribunal accepts that the Applicant's risk of recidivism is higher than a trivial or transient risk. That would ordinarily suggest that the risk was 'unacceptable' because it is very serious conduct that the Australian Government does not condone and is conduct of a kind which the Tribunal is directed to protect the Australian community from.
9. The Tribunal is conscious of the adverse effects that an adverse risk assessment might have on the Applicant and has weighed that in the balance, given the burden that such a conclusion might have on the outcome of the review and his migration status in this country more broadly, based upon an assessment made about the risk of commission of future crimes.
10. On balance, the Tribunal considers that the Applicant poses an acceptable risk to the Australian community.
11. The Tribunal finds this primary consideration to weigh against revocation but not determinatively against it.

Strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia

1. The Tribunal is required to consider any impact of the decision on the Applicant's immediate family members in Australia.[111] The Tribunal must also consider the strength, nature, and duration of any other ties that the Applicant has to the Australian community, having regard to how long he has resided in Australia,[112] and the 'strength, duration and nature of any family or social links with Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia'.[113]
2. The Applicant's immediate family reside in Nepal. They are not Australian citizens or permanent residents. He told the Tribunal that he historically provided financial support to his sister, who is studying nursing in Kathmandu. The Applicant said that his friends have been providing that financial assistance since he has been in prison and immigration detention. This accords with the DFAT Report, which indicates that Nepal is 'one of the poorest, least developed countries in the world' and that 'remittances from the very large Nepali diaspora are central to the economy' ([2.14], [2.10]).
3. The sentencing judge, Prisoners Review Board and the Tribunal were each provided with extensive references from members of the Nepali community in Western Australia regarding the Applicant, and references from the Applicant's previous employers and colleagues. The Tribunal notes that this material includes references from the Applicant's co-offenders, Messrs RR and AKK. Their references must be viewed with some circumspection. Some of the reference material also includes a narrative about the Applicant's offending which is not true. However, this was explained by the Applicant during the hearing and the Tribunal accepts that he has now developed remorse and insight into the offending. In the Tribunal's view, the fact that Mr and Mrs Shrestha were willing to provide the Applicant with accommodation in their home and employment in their cleaning business speaks volumes. The Applicant's former supervisor at Halite Seals in Welshpool, Ms Douglas, also provided him with a glowing reference.[114]
4. The Tribunal accepts that, in the seven years in which the Applicant has resided in Australia, he has developed and maintained social links to the Nepali community in Western Australia (some of whom are Australian citizens or permanent residents) and made a positive impact on those with whom he has worked. The Tribunal notes in this respect that the Applicant has been industrious with both his studies and employment.
5. A clear theme which emerged from the material was that the Applicant is highly motivated to build a better life for himself and his immediate family and that he genuinely cares for his mother and sister. He has had a generally positive impact on the Nepali community in Western Australia, including being responsible for organising various social events to celebrate Australia's multiculturalism, promote inclusiveness, respect and a sense of belonging for everyone.
6. The Tribunal finds this primary consideration to weigh moderately in favour of revocation.

1. This primary consideration is a 'kind of deeming provision',[115] which requires the Tribunal to consider the Minister's articulation of community expectations.[116]
2. Clause 8.5(1) of the Direction provides that 'the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia'. The Direction goes on to state that:[117]

[w]here a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they may do so, the Australian community, as a norm, expects the Government would not allow such a non-citizen to enter or remain in Australia.

3. Clause 8.5(2) then adds to that first 'norm_'_ and indicates that non-revocation may be appropriate in a particular case 'simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences is such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not be granted or continue to hold a visa'. It specifies identified kinds of conduct, committed in Australia or elsewhere, as attracting that further expectation.[118] This includes 'violent crimes against women, children or other vulnerable members of the community'.[119]
4. The Minister submitted that the list of types of conduct set out at cl 8.5(2) of the Direction was not exhaustive, and that the Tribunal should consider that grievous bodily harm is a type of offence which raises serious character concerns through conduct even though it may not have been committed against women, children, or other vulnerable members of the community. This construction was said to be supported by the decision in LRMM v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 51 (LRMM FC No 3).
5. The terms of the Direction should be construed according to orthodox principles of statutory construction, namely that their meaning is to be ascertained by reference to the text, the context in which they appear and their purpose.[120]
6. In LRMM FC No 3, Collier J was dealing with an application for judicial review of a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, on its second remittal, and in circumstances where the Tribunal (differently constituted) had, amongst other things, found that conduct in that case, which included armed robbery in company and with wounding, whilst not falling within the 'auspices' of the examples listed in cl 8.5(2), was 'of such a magnitude of seriousness that regardless...the Australian community would expect that the Australian Government can and should cancel this Applicant's visa' ([78]).
7. Her Honour held:

[85] First, I am not persuaded that the list of offences as set out in para 8.5(2) of Direction 99 is exhaustive as submitted by the applicant, and that the decision-maker should not have regard to offending by the non-citizen other than that list. I have formed this view because:

• Paragraph 8.5(1) specifically states that where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they may do so, the Australian community, as a norm, expects the Government to not allow such a non-citizen to enter or remain in Australia. This paragraph is framed in general terms, referable to "serious conduct". A decision-maker may have regard to this general provision in assessing the expectations of the Australian community, and form a view as to whether the non-citizen has engaged in "serious conduct" such that he or she should not be permitted to remain in Australia.
• Paragraph 8.5(2) is plainly an addendum to para 8.5(1). It commences with the words "in addition", presumably being "in addition to para 8.5(1). Para 8.5(2) gives further leeway to a decision maker to cancel or refuse a visa, or refuse to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a visa, on the basis that such a decision "may be appropriate". It provides examples of the types of offences which raise serious character concerns through conduct, being "in particular" of the kind set out in para 8.5(2)(a)-(f), and indicates the Government's views of the seriousness of such offences. The manifold qualifications to para 8.5(2), in my view, clearly mean that the list of offences in para 8.5(2)(a)-(f) is not an exhaustive list, being only "in particular" types of offences which raise serious character concerns through conduct.

[86] Second, on the basis that the list of offending as set out in para 8.5(2) is not exhaustive, the question arises whether the Tribunal at D[180] improperly made an independent assessment of what the Australian community would expect for the purposes of para 8.5 of Direction 99. > > [87] I am not persuaded that the Tribunal did so in this case. > > [88] The Tribunal at D[180] had regard to the nature of the applicant's offending which came before the District Court of Queensland in July 2020, as a result of which the applicant was convicted and sentenced to terms of imprisonment of three and four years. As set out earlier in this judgment, those convictions related to, inter alia, offences of robbery, assault and using personal violence. Unlike, for example, the decision of the Tribunal considered by Rofe J in Muller v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 924 (Muller) where the Tribunal had assessed the community's expectations in light of the personal circumstances of the applicant, the decision of the Tribunal in this case was referable only to the "magnitude of seriousness" of the convictions of the applicant in July 2020. As accepted by her Honour in Muller at [86], para 8.5(1) of Direction 99 is a deeming clause which ascribes or imputes to the Australian community an expectation that wholly aligns with the expectation of the executive government of the day, with such expectations to be applied as norms. To assert that the Tribunal in this case was unable to have regard to the existence of the applicant's convictions in applying the relevant norm as set out in para 8.5(1) of Direction 99 would render the terms of para 8.5(1) meaningless. > > [89] In my view, ground of review 3 is not substantiated.

1. Based on the terms of the Direction, and the analysis in LRMM FC No 3, the Tribunal accepts, in principle, that conduct which causes bodily injury of such a nature that it endangers life or is likely to cause permanent injury to health is conduct that may give rise to serious character concerns for the purposes of cl 8.5(2) of the Direction.
2. In this case, it was conduct which was likely to cause permanent injury to health, considered to be in the mid-range of seriousness for grievous bodily harm offences of this kind. The Tribunal has explained above why it considered the offence in question to be "very serious" conduct. The Tribunal accepts this conduct gives rises to 'serious character concerns'.
3. The Tribunal is specifically commanded to 'proceed on the basis of the Government's views as articulated' in the Direction, 'without independently assessing the community's expectations in the particular case'.[121]
4. The Applicant falls foul of both stated norms, and these are identified to 'apply regardless of whether the [Applicant] poses a [measurable] risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community'.[122]
5. The Tribunal adopts the approach to this primary consideration identified by Horan J in RCLN v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 876 at [50]- [59].
6. The Tribunal finds that this primary consideration weighs against revocation and will weigh this against the other relevant considerations.

1. The Tribunal is required to consider the legal consequences of its decision.[123] That is, 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).
2. There are three major consequences of visa refusal or cancellation under s 501 and related provisions:

(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);[124]

(b) refusal/cancellation of other visa applications/visas under s 501F of the Migration Act; and

(c) the possible application of 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.

1. These adverse consequences can each be avoided by a positive decision to revoke the cancellation decision, but it should not be assumed that Parliament has evinced any preference as to the outcome of the review.[125]
2. When the Applicant's Bridging Visa A was cancelled, he became an 'unlawful non-citizen'.[126] That is, a non-citizen in the migration zone who did not hold a visa that is in effect.[127] This status conferred liability to be detained under s 189(1) of the Migration Act and this occurred on 25 July 2025.
3. The Applicant is relevantly required to be detained until he is either removed from Australia under s 198 or he is granted a visa (including having his visa restored to him under s 501CA(4)).[128]
4. Sections 198(1) and (2B) of the Migration Act provide for removal either at written request or where there has been a mandatory cancellation and a subsequent decision made not to revoke that cancellation, respectively.
5. The duty to remove an unlawful non-citizen arises irrespective of whether there has been an assessment, according to law, of Australia's non-refoulement obligations in respect of the non-citizen.[129] However, s 198 of the Migration Act does not require or authorise a non-citizen's removal to a country if, during the course of a protection visa application, there has been a 'protection finding' made for the person with respect to that country.[130]
6. The Applicant advanced what he described as 'considerable hardship' if he were to be forced to return to Nepal as potential reasons why the cancellation decision should be revoked. At hearing, and after an explanation of Australia's non-refoulement obligations, it became apparent that the Applicant was not, in fact, claiming to engage Australia's protection obligations. Rather, he was seeking to identify the economic and structural issues prevailing in Nepal, the circumstances of his life in Australia to date, and his associated hopes and aspirations for a better life. The Tribunal has considered these issues below in the context of the extent of impediments if removed other consideration.
7. The Tribunal has already referred to the associated refusal decision taken to have been made as a consequence of the mandatory cancellation decision above.
8. The Minister submitted that the legal and other consequences of affirming the reviewable decision, including the potential for further detention until the Applicant is either granted a visa or removed, were the intended consequences of the statutory scheme and that the weight to be given to these consequences was subsumed into the Tribunal's evaluation of the other relevant considerations.[131]
9. The Tribunal disagrees.
10. As Chief Justice Allsop remarked in Hands v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) 267 FCR 628,[132] cases under s 501 of the Migration Act have human consequences, which require honest confrontation of what is being done to people.
11. The Applicant is from one of the world's poorest and least developed countries. He came to Australia at 18 years of age and completed his tertiary education here. Overall, the material before the Tribunal suggests that he has made a positive contribution to the Australian community in the seven years he has been resident here. He appears to have understood how fortunate he was to be given that opportunity. He generally seems to have grasped it with both hands and is thought to have a good work and study ethic. The Applicant has not, in fact, had the opportunity to put the skills he acquired from his commerce degree into practice. Of course, there was not an expectation that he would be given that opportunity, and he was already provided two years' working rights in which to obtain it, between July 2022 and July 2024 on the first temporary graduate visa. He was on bail between November 2022 and July 2024, but this did not affect his ability to work because during this period he was working full-time as a store-person in a warehouse.
12. The Applicant committed a very serious offence in October 2022, which carries with it an expectation that he should not be allowed to remain in Australia. The offence seems to have been isolated, and the Applicant otherwise has no criminal history. The Applicant's sentence of imprisonment for that crime caused the mandatory cancellation of his bridging visa and the associated refusal of his second temporary graduate visa application.
13. It was clear that the Applicant is seeking to establish permanent residence in this country. A decision to affirm the reviewable decision will put a definitive nail in the coffin of that ambition.
14. In the Tribunal's humble opinion, the prospect of further detention (pending removal) and subsequent removal and permanent exclusion from this country ought to be given some weight against that outcome in the ultimate balancing exercise.
15. The legal and other consequences of the Tribunal's decision weigh in favour of revocation.

1. The Tribunal must consider the extent of any impediments that the Applicant may face if removed from Australia to Nepal, in establishing himself, and in maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens in that country), taking into account the Applicant's age and health, whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers, and any social, medical, and/or economic support available to him.[133]
2. The Applicant is 26 years of age and is in good health. He told the Tribunal that he had been engaged in extracurricular activities in both prison and immigration detention. He is not on any medication.
3. It may be accepted that there are not substantial language or cultural barriers to any return to Nepal given the Applicant grew up there and left as an adult. He is also in regular contact with his mother and sister, who remain resident in Kathmandu.
4. As previously observed, the DFAT Report indicates that Nepal is one of the poorest, least developed countries in the world. It is prone to regular natural disasters ([2.4]). Politics and security in the region is considered unstable ([2.3], [2.45]-[2.49]). The Nepali economy is comparatively poor, and, as observed above, remittances from the diaspora is a central pillar of it ([2.8]-[2.13]).
5. The Applicant emphasised DFAT's observation that 'young graduates can experience difficulty finding employment and many seek to migrate as a result' ([2.15]). He indicated that he would seek to remain in Australia and, if not successful in that ambition and had to return to Nepal, he would contemplate other third country options.
6. Corruption is widespread in Nepal, and it is common to pay 'facilitation fees' for basic government services (DFAT Report, [2.36]-[2.38]). There is free essential medical care available in Nepal, however there are out-of-pocket expenses associated with it and the health sector is affected by widespread poverty, limited government funding, and the remote and mountainous geography ([2.17]-[2.22]). Mental health services are extremely limited and less available than primary healthcare services ([2.23]-[2.27]).
7. Lastly, there is no indication of any mistreatment of returnees and many failed asylum seekers have returned there without reported difficulty ([5.28]-[5.29]).
8. The Tribunal canvassed the India-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship, India-Nepal, signed 31 July 1950, 94 UNTS 3, entered into force 31 July 1950, with the Applicant, and he indicated that he was aware of the free movement available between the two countries. He thought that India had similar issues to Nepal and said that his Hindi was limited. The Tribunal notes that English is an official language of, and is widely spoken in, India.[134]
9. The Tribunal finds that there are real, structural impediments to the Applicant re-establishing himself and maintaining basic livings standards in Nepal. These impediments are not insurmountable, but they should not easily be dismissed.
10. The Minister submitted that the impediments to the Applicant re-establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards should be given limited to moderate weight in favour of revocation.[135]
11. The Tribunal finds that this other consideration weighs moderately in favour of revocation.

1. The Tribunal must consider any impact of its decision on Australian business interests.[136]
2. The Applicant was previously one of the company directors of an event promotion company, Octave Events. He resigned from that position upon his imprisonment. The Tribunal understands that this company is being run today by other persons.
3. The Applicant has previously been employed by several large companies, including with McDonalds and as a contractor with Programmed Skilled Workforce Pty Ltd (at the Hallite Seals Warehouse referred to above). Despite the Applicant being a valued employee, these large corporations will not be materially affected by the Applicant not being allowed to remain in Australia.
4. The Applicant has been offered employment with Mr Shrestha's commercial cleaning company, SAS Facility Services Pty Ltd.[137] However, both the Applicant and Mr Shrestha admitted in oral evidence that the Applicant's potential employment with that company was not critical to that business, rather it was Mr Shrestha providing the Applicant with paid employment because he is a very close friend and wants him to remain in Australia.
5. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there will be any meaningful impact on an Australian business interest if the Applicant is not allowed to remain in Australia.
6. Even if it was wrong in that assessment, the Tribunal would not be minded to give such impact, and the Applicant's employment links in this country, any weight because they do not relate to a major project or the delivery of an important service in Australia.[138]
7. This other consideration weighs neutrally.

1. The Tribunal is required to bring together the relevant considerations in this matter and consider, as part of a single evaluation, their relative significance in terms of whether the Tribunal is ultimately satisfied that there is 'another reason' why the mandatory cancellation decision should be revoked.[139]
2. Clause 7(2) of the Direction states that the primary consideration in cl 8.1 (protection of the Australian community) is 'generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations', and that, otherwise, the relevant 'primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the [relevant] other considerations.' This guidance is consistent with the principle articulated at cl 5.2(2), that 'the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian government'.
3. The above policy guidance does not mean that the other relevant considerations are secondary to the primary considerations, or that the first primary consideration should always be given greater weight than any other relevant consideration (including the other primary considerations).[140]
4. The Tribunal has found that the Applicant has engaged in very serious criminal conduct to date, but that he poses an acceptable risk to the Australian community of repeating similar conduct. In the Tribunal's view, the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia, when taken together with the other considerations of the legal and other consequences of the decision and the extent of impediments if removed, outweigh the combined adverse effect of the protection and expectations of the Australian community primary considerations. Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that the relevant considerations in this matter amount to 'another reason' to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision.
5. In summary, the Tribunal, after considering each of the relevant considerations identified within the Direction and the Applicant's representations, is satisfied that there is 'another reason' to revoke the cancellation decision. The correct or preferable decision is therefore to set aside the reviewable decision and substitute it with a decision to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision.

1. The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution, decides that the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's Bridging Visa A should be revoked.

I certify that the preceding 159 (one hundred and fifty-nine) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of General Member J Papalia

...................[SGD].....................................................

[47] See Exhibit 1, pp 248 [18], 314-321.

[48] See Exhibit 1, pp 248 [18(7)], 319-320.

[49] See Exhibit 1, pp 248 [18(8)], 320.

[53] See Purcell v The State of Western Australia [2025] WASCA 86, [99], [114].

[61] See Exhibit 1, pp 103-129, but cf. Exhibit 1, p 62 [3].

[65] See Exhibit 2, see also Exhibit 1, pp 52-57.

[67] See Bainbridge v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 1080, [64]-[65].

[70] Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs [201][ HCA 17; [2022] HCA 27; (2022) 275 CLR 582, [22].

[71] Ibid. See also Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v Viane [2021] HCA 41; (2021) 274 CLR 398, [13]-[15]; Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs v McQueen [2024] HCA 11; (2024) 94 ALJR 594, [6].

[72] Direction, cl 5.1(4); Migration Act, s 499(2A).

[73] See LPDT v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 12; (2024) 280 CLR 321, [33].

[74] Singh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 46; (2023) 296 FCR 582, [23], [81].

[75] Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) [1979] AATA 179; (1979) 2 ALD 634.

[78] Direction, cl 5.1(3) and Annexure A; See also Smith v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 652, [40] (not disturbed on appeal, [2025] FCAFC 78).

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

[80] Migration Act, s 501(7)(c).

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

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

[87] See McFarlane v The State of Western Australia [2024] WASCA 33, [41].

[95] See BSJ16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1181, [68]; Hambledon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 7, [41].

[97] Australian Institute of Criminology, 'The serious impact and consequences of physical assault', Trends & Issues in crime and criminal justice (August 2015, Issue no 496), accessible online: https://www.aic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-05/tandi496.pdf.

[99] See Exhibit 1, pp 356 [8.2], 358 [14.1].

[105] See Exhibit 1, p 358 [14]-[15].

[109] See Lasalo v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCFAC 82, [22]-[23], [27]-[28]; Price v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 171; (2023) 301 FCR 484, [71]-[72].

[110] See https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/getting-a-visa/visa-processing-times/global-visa-processing-times.

[115] YNQY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1466, [76].

[120] See Mizen v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCAFC 84; (2025) 310 FCR 421, [64].

[123] Direction, cl 9.1(1). See also NBMZ v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCAFC 38; (2014) 220 FCR 1, [3], [9]-[10]; Taulahi v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 177; (2016) 246 FCR 146, [84], [88].

[124] See also Migration Act, s 46(1)(d).

[125] See Stoneley and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 143, [36].

[126] Migration Act, s 15.

[127] See Migration Act, ss 13-14.

[128] Migration Act, ss 196(1)(a), 196(1)(c), 196(4)-(5), 501C(6)-(7).

[129] See Migration Act, s 197C(2).

[130] See Migration Act, s 197C(3).

[131] See RSFIC, [50]. See also Stoneley v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 143, [37]; Doan v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 1411, [41].

[132] Hands v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 225; (2018) 267 FCR 628, [3].

[134] See DFAT Country Information Report for India dated 29 September 2023, [2.8], [3.2].

[139] See CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 138, [27]-[28]; VZWF v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 1160, [8].

[140] See Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 594; (2018) 74 AAR 545.