........................................................................

Migration - mandatory cancellation of Class BB (Subclass 155) Five Year Resident Return Visa - serious offending - Belgium national - failure to pass character test - sexual offending against a child - whether another reason mandatory cancellation should be revoked - Ministerial Direction No. 110 applied - ties to Australia - impediments to removal - decision affirmed

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)

Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)

Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)

HZCP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCAFC 202

Kostandy v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2025] ARTA 1047

LZGG and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2020] AATA 107

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Ali [2000] FCA 1385; (2000) 62 ALD 673

Pomare v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 458; (2008) 167 FCR 494

Rano v Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for Cyber Security [2024] FCA 1003

Russell v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 110

Stoneley v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 143

Direction No. 110 - Migration Act 1958 - Direction under section 499: Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501

1. On 23 July 2025, a delegate of the Minister administering the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Minister), cancelled the applicant, Mr Bosmans' Class BB (Subclass 155) Five Year Resident Return Visa under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
2. On 23 July 2025, Mr Bosmans provided a response to the decision, requesting revocation of the decision to cancel his visa for other reasons.
3. On 24 October 2025, a delegate of the Minister made a decision not to revoke the cancellation of Mr Bosmans's visa. The delegate concluded:

36. Mr BOSMANS' sexual offending, involving a young child, caused great harm to the victim and his family. He has previously been convicted of other sexual offences against minors. Should he re-offend in future with further sexual offences against a child, it could result in yet more significant harm for the community. I have found that Mr BOSMANS' conduct is very serious and that this type of conduct has the potential to cause physical and/or psychological injury and/or financial harm to vulnerable members of the Australian community. > > 37. Family support, employment and financial stability can normally be considered to reduce a person's risk of offending. I note that in Mr BOSMANS' case he had no family support at the time of his offending, however he was in receipt of a disability pension, which would provide some financial stability. I am unsure as to whether he had stable accommodation, however it appears that he has been residing with a friend, Ms .... No representations have been received from Ms ..... > > 38. On the basis of the information before me, I am not satisfied that Mr BOSMANS has demonstrated any remorse for his victim, or gained any insight into his offending. I find that Mr BOSMANS has not accepted accountability for his conduct nor has he addressed the factors that led to his offending, which is inconsistent with achieving rehabilitation. As such I find that his rehabilitation appears not to have started, let alone being complete. On balance I consider there remains a clear likelihood that Mr BOSMANS will reoffend. In saying this, I note that child sex offences fall into a category of offending where the potential harm is so serious that even a low likelihood of repeat offending is unacceptable. > > 39. Considering the nature and seriousness of Mr BOSMANS' conduct, the potential harm to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct, and taking into account the likelihood of Mr BOSMAN reoffending, I consider that the need to protect the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct weighs greatly against revocation in this case.

4. On 6 November 2025, Mr Bosmans applied via Australia Post from Maryborough Correction Centre to the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) under s 501 of the Act seeking review of the decision to refuse to revoke the cancellation of his visa, stating:

I am in the Twilight of my life and have no desire to reoffend as a prospect of spending the end of my days in detention is [too] horrific to contemplate. > > I looked after my mother with the end of her life without help or any offer of any assistance from my brothers and as a result I have a very deep bond with my parents who have both buried here in Australia. > > If I am removed to Belgium, I will lose this last family connection. > > I suffer from severe dyslexia and have a knowledge of Australia whereas in Belgium, I have no knowledge of any of the social structures. > > I have a third-party submitting this application on my behalf.

5. On 24 November 2025, a Directions hearing was held before Senior Member Manetta; the Senior Member issued the following directions to assist Mr Bosman as a self-represented applicant:

J. Mr Hendriks advised the Tribunal that he has dyslexia and is unable to read documents for any continual period of time. > > K. Mr Hendriks further advised that he has no way of contacting potential witnesses from within the Maryborough Correctional Centre (where he is being detained) as he is not permitted to call anyone without their prior permission. He advised the Tribunal that there are four witnesses he wishes to give evidence: Mr M B, Mr Z B, and Mr C K, all he believes of...; and Ms MW of, he believes, ... > > L. Mr Hendriks further advised that in relation to the B and Mr K, he expects them to wish to give evidence and he expressed a desire that the Tribunal subpoena them so the Tribunal can question them if he cannot arrange for them to provide a statement; but he did not wish Ms MW to be subpoenaed if she cannot give a statement. > > M. The Tribunal indicated that it would write a letter to each of the aforementioned people advising them that Mr Hendriks wishes to speak with them about giving evidence on his behalf at the hearing, and that they should seek to make contact him with him at the Maryborough Correctional Centre.

6. The Tribunal wrote to all the potential witnesses on Mr Bosmans' behalf as directed.
7. At the hearing of his application via video on 13 & 14 January 2026, Mr Bosmans was self-represented, and Ms Caitlin White of Sparke Helmore appeared for the Minister. The Minister lodged a set of paginated G-Documents, documentation outlining benefits of social security, health and disability rights in Belgium, Mr Bosman's movement records and summons documents from Queensland Corrections Services, Department of Communities and Justice New South Wales, Queensland and New South Wales Police, Department of Main Roads and Transport Queensland and Department of Transport New South Wales.

1. On 26 November 2025 a Tribunal Officer provided the following advice to the Respondent in respect of the issue of jurisdiction canvassed at the previous directions hearing:

The matter was called on by the Senior Member because an internal Tribunal record indicated that the Tribunal may have received the applicant's review application on 6 November 2025, being 10 days after the decision in question was notified to the applicant (and not 9 days as required by s 500(6B) of the Migration Act 1958). The Senior Member was concerned that if this were the case, the Tribunal may not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the review application. > > At the hearing, the Senior Member indicated that on further investigation it was clear that the envelope containing the applicant's review application was addressed to the Tribunal's Brisbane Street address and bore a stamp 'received 6 November 2025 Administrative Review Tribunal'. This suggested the envelope was stamped in the Tribunal's Brisbane premises on this date. The envelope also bore a large marking next to the street address in red: '9955', which is the Tribunal's GPO Box number. This was not known to the Senior Member before he asked for the matter to be called on. > > The Senior Member observed at the hearing that this red marking suggested the applicant's envelope was diverted by Australia Post to the ART's GPO Box in Brisbane and was not delivered to the Tribunal's Brisbane street address by Australia Post. If this was the case, the ART presumably collected the envelope from its GPO box and stamped the envelope in its Brisbane registry. It was not clear from the envelope when delivery to the GPO Box had occurred: logically, it might have occurred on 6 November 2025 or it might have occurred on an earlier date. > > The Senior Member noted also that he was not prepared to rule on his own motion and without hearing full argument that delivery of the envelope to the Tribunal's GPO Box did not count as a lodgement with the Tribunal as required by s 500(6B) of the Migration Act 1958 (since the GPO Box was, presumably, a private box to which the ART had an exclusive right of access). > > It followed that as the delivery date to the Tribunal's GPO Box was unclear, the Senior Member was not prepared to rule on his own motion that the applicant had not lodged his application for review with the Tribunal within 9 days as required by s 500(6B) of the Migration Act 1958. He also wished to make clear, however, that if the respondent desired to apply to the Tribunal to have the application dismissed for want of jurisdiction, that dismissal application could be made formally to the Tribunal, and he would receive evidence and hear full argument on the matter and then proceed to decide the question. > > The Tribunal has not, therefore, made any final decision that it does or does not have jurisdiction. It simply decided that it would not of its own motion dismiss the application for want of jurisdiction on the basis of the evidence then known to it.

2. On 9 January 2026 the Respondent filed a submission addressing the issue of whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the decision made by a delegate of the Minister on 22 October 2025 under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to not revoke the cancellation of the Applicant's Resident Return (Class BB) (Subclass 155) visa (visa).
3. In summary, the Respondent submitted that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction by operation of s 500(6B) of the Act, because Mr Bosmans was given valid notice of the decision on 27 October 2025, and he was therefore required to have lodged his application for review by no later than 5 November 2025.
4. The Tribunal was made aware at the commencement of the hearing on 13 January 2026 of the Respondent's formal position that it considered the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to review the non-revocation decision and submitted that Mr Bosmans' application should be dismissed.
5. The Tribunal determined at the commencement of the hearing it had jurisdiction to hear the matter, as on the evidence before it, Mr Bosmans had submitted his appeal within the 9 days as required by section 500(6B) of the Migration Act.
6. The Tribunal also did not consider it procedurally fair to Mr Bosmans as a self-represented applicant with learning difficulties to dismiss the matter on the first day of an expedited hearing where the decision was required within 6 days, inclusive of a weekend. The Tribunal also considered Mr Bosmans was in no position to refute a jurisdiction position put by the Respondent as he had not seen the Respondent's submission seeking dismissal until the start of the substantive hearing.
7. The Respondent submitted that under section 500(6B) of the Migration Act an application for review of a non-revocation decision under s 501CA(4) to the Tribunal "must be lodged with the ART within 9 days after the day on which the person was notified of the decision in accordance with [s] 501G(1)". The Respondent contested Mr Bosmans's application had not been lodged with the Tribunal within 9 days as required by section 500(6B).
8. The Respondent submitted that the phrase "must be given to the ART" clearly conveyed that an application for review must be lodged with the Tribunal within 9 days after the day on which the applicant is taken to have received the notice. The ordinary meaning of "given" when used as a past participle is "delivered as of the date specified". In other words, the reference to an application being "given to" the Tribunal should be read as a reference to a process that involves the Tribunal receiving the application. The Respondent submitted it was not the case that the use of the word "given" conveys the notion that an applicant is merely required to have dispatched and addressed an application for review to the Tribunal by the nominated date.
9. The Respondent contended the meaning of "lodged with ART" in s 500(6B) was to the effect that a review application is not "made" or "lodged" until it is received by a Registry, citing the Federal Court authority in the matter of Pomare v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 458; (2008) 167 FCR 494 (Pomare) in which Justice Lindgren said:

It was common ground that the application would be received by the Tribunal, and therefore made, only when it reached a registry office of the Tribunal. In any event, I would have so held. It should not be readily accepted that a notification would be in accordance with subpara 501G(1)(f)(iv) by specifying a post office box in view of the difficulty or impossibility for a person and, indeed the Tribunal itself, of ascertaining and proving the time when an application reached the specified post office box. The importance of being able to know when an application is received, and therefore "made", is obvious, as the present case shows. All difficulty disappearances if the relevant place where an application may be made is a registry office of the Tribunal. I use the expression "registry office" to mean the office of the Registrar where applications initiating proceedings before the Tribunal are received, and can be lodged and delivered, and where the Tribunal's files relating to proceedings before it is maintained. The word "registry", standing alone, may be sufficient to convey that meaning.

10. The Respondent contended Mr Bosmans was given valid notice of the non-revocation decision on 27 October 2025, and was required to have lodged his application for review with the Tribunal by 5 November 2025.
11. The Respondent submitted Mr Bosmans's review application was not received at the Tribunal's Brisbane Registry until 6 November 2025, which was one day after the time-period expired.
12. The Tribunal found the evidence clearly indicated Mr Bosmans submitted his appeal application via Australia Post to the Tribunal's Brisbane Street address which was then diverted by Australia Post to the Tribunal's Brisbane Post Office Box. The Tribunal concurs with the determination in Pomare that there is no way of establishing when an application arrives in the Post Office Box. However, the Tribunal does not find this determinative of Mr Bosmans's case as he clearly directed his appeal application to the Brisbane Registry and not the Post Office Box, but for some inexplicable reason this has been undermined by Australia Post.
13. The Respondent submitted the Tribunal might well conclude Mr Bosmans had endeavoured to lodge his review application in accordance with s 500(6B), and due to circumstances beyond his control, was unable to lodge his review application within nine days of receiving the decision. However, the Respondent submitted these kinds of arguments were rejected by the Full Court in Russell v Minister for Home Affairs (2019) 275 FCR 334; [2019] FCA 110 (Nicholas, Bromwich and Burley JJ). In that case, the appellant, through no fault on her part, was unable to lodge (in that case electronically) her review application within the time limit. The Full Court accepted that on a proper construction of s 500(6B), the application had to be received within the prescribed nine days, which, through no fault of the appellant, it had not been (at [28]).
14. The Tribunal did not consider the matter of Russell determinative of Mr Bosmans' case, as the Primary Judge and Full Court, both found it was Ms Russell's responsibility to ascertain her email had been delivered correctly. The Tribunal found it was not possible for Mr Bosmans to ascertain if his mail had been delivered by Australia Post to the Tribunal Street address and not the post office box.

2. THE DECISION OF THE PRIMARY JUDGE > > As acknowledged by Ms Russell, the cause of the delivery failure of her email sent on 31 August 2018 was the size of the file. While it is true that the "How to Apply for Merits Review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal" form which accompanied the notification of the delegate's decision on 24 August 2018 did not contain advice about possible file size limits which might affect the Tribunal's capacity to receive an application by email. In my view it did not need to. Ms Russell was sent a notification of the delivery failure shortly after she sent her email on 31 August 2018. The fact that she does not commonly use a computer does not negate the fact that it was open to her to find out about the delivery failure shortly after she sent her email. It was her responsibility to ensure that the email was received by the Tribunal. > > Accordingly, the application was dismissed. > > Consideration > > 25. Ms Russell also relies on the terms of s 161(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), which contains a rebuttable presumption that an email sent from the address appearing on its face, was received at the destination to which it was addressed on its face. However, in this case the presumption is rebutted by the mail server email stating that the application email was not delivered to the Tribunal email address because it was too big. That email was before the primary judge and before this Court. Accordingly, the presumption has no application. > > 27. In such circumstances it is unfortunate that Ms Russell is now deprived of an opportunity to have a merits review of her application. Nevertheless, we do not consider that she is able to succeed on the basis of the arguments advanced. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

15. The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction as on the evidence before it as Mr Bosmans had submitted his appeal application via Australia Post to the Brisbane Street address on 4 November 2025, which is within the required timeframe.

1. Mr Bosmans is a 67-year-old Belgian citizen, who arrived in Australia with his family in 1970 at the age of twelve. On 24 January 1997 Mr Bosmans was granted a Class BB (Subclass 155) Five Year Resident Return Visa.
2. In his Honour Judge Burnet's sentencing remarks, he described Mr Bosmans's history:

You were raised by both your parents. You were born in Belgium. I understand you are still a citizen of Belgium or the Netherlands. I am not sure which - if it is a separate county or not, but certainly of that part of Europe. You came to Australia as a young man or as a young boy with your parents and your siblings, one of whom is now deceased. > > You struggle here in Australia as a young person. You were educated to grade 10. You had difficulties at school and you had undiagnosed dyslexia and English was your second language. It is unsurprising that you were not able to do more than achieve what could be best described as low-school employment for some period of time while you were in employment. > > From about the mid '90s to 2007, you were your mother's carer. She had significant health issues which required assistance with medication, cooking and cleaning and that occurred until about 2007. > > You have your own difficulties. You have back - suffered back, neck and shoulder injuries from a workplace incident, matters which were exacerbated by a motor vehicle accident. You have been on a disability support pension for some time and I understand that you now suffer from diabetes, although that is managed without medication and you have blood pressure and cholesterol issues. None of those matters are surprising; they are quite customary for a gentleman of your age. There are no other substance abuse - abuse issues spoken of. > > You were married for a period of seven years. Although that marriage produced no children, your wife did have two children to a prior relationship. It appears the relationship broke down upon her engaging in an affair. She has died in the meantime.

1. Mandatory visa cancellation in circumstances of a substantial criminal record arises under s 501(3A) of the Act. This is one of a number of ways in which a person may fail the character test in s 501(6). A substantial criminal record is defined as including the situation where a person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more (s 501(7)(c)).
2. A mandatory cancellation decision may be revoked upon application where a person is found to pass the character test, or where there is another reason to revoke the decision (s 501CA(4)). A compulsory source of guidance has been issued in the form of Direction No. 110 (the Direction). I will refer to the factors identified in the Direction below, and also note that considerations are to be informed by the following principles:

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

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

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

(4) The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they engaged in conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, that raises serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a 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-citizen's conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation.

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

1. Mr Bosmans conceded that he did not pass the character test for the purposes of s 501CA(4)(b)(i) of the Act and he confirmed this at the hearing. The Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Bosmans does not satisfy the character test under s 501 on account of his substantial criminal record as defined under s 501(7) being sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.
2. Accordingly, the issue for consideration by the Tribunal is whether the cancellation of Mr Bosmans's visa should be revoked, taking into account the relevant considerations in the Direction. In essence, the Tribunal must be satisfied there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked.

1. The following table has been derived from a national criminal history check relating to Mr Bosmans, produced by the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission on 15 July 2025.

RELATIONSHIP WITH A CHILD (BTN 30/04/2021 & 30/03/2022)

Use unregistered vehicle on road area (not a trailer)

ORDER: 100 HOURS COSTS - COURT: $58 DISQUALIFICATION: 2

Use unregistered vehicle on road area (not a trailer)

Driver of vehicle displaying misleading registration label

Use unregistered vehicle on road area (not a trailer)

ORDER: 100 HOURS CUMULATIVE COSTS - COURT: $58 DISQUALIFICATION: 2 YEARS

FINE: $600 COSTS- COURT: $56 DISQUALIFICATION: 12 MONTHS CONCLUDING 18/02/2002

$500 2 YEARS NOT ASSAULT MOLEST HARASS VICTIM COSTS - COURT: $52

COMMUNITY SERVICE ORDER: 50 HOURS COSTS - COURT: $58

1. Following a conviction of guilt, His Honour Judge Burnet, imposed a total term of 3 years and 3 months' imprisonment with eligibility for parole from 3 December 2025, which is about the halfway point of his sentence. In his remarks his Honour outlined Mr Bosmans' offending:

Mr Bosmans you have been found guilty by a jury of one count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child. It carries a maximum of life imprisonment. I have little difficulty accepting the jury's verdict as being correct; indeed, I am completely satisfied it is.

I am satisfied from not only the jury's verdict but also the evidence that the offending occurred on about 20 occasions or up to 20 occasions, which occurred over about a 12-month period, during which time you babysat the complainant child. At the time of the offending, the child was aged ; you were age 62 to 63. I note you are now 65.

The offending here has a particularly troubling background and that is the abuse of trust which gave rise to this offending. The complainant, of course, was a young ... but his mother was equally vulnerable. She was a single mother doing the best she could with very difficult ............... She gave the child to you to care for the child while she was at work on Saturday nights at the local - one of the local.... The offending constituted a significant and egregious breach of the trust that had been invested by her in you to do the right thing. I have little difficulty accepting the impact that this offending has had upon her and her - and the complainant himself.

1. His Honour Judge J B Phelan in his sentencing remarks of 26 September 1990 outlined the charges against Mr Bosmans:

Bosmans you appear before this court charge with no 10 less than six serious charges involving the indecent assault of teenage boys and all of those charges except for the first relate to circumstances where those boys were under your authority. That factor means that they must be observed in an even graver fashion than would otherwise be the case.

The charges relate to three boys and start as early as 1 January 1985 with the boy ....who was then only 10 years of age and these acts continued until 31 July 1988. There were repeated instances of these offences which largely consisted of you fondling the boys' penises or sucking them. The facts in any event are canvassed in the statement of facts by Constable Harryman and they themselves demonstrate to me a relatively serious example of each of those offences although they do not represent the more grave range of this type of offence.....

1. A pre-sentencing report completed by a Community Services Organiser of the Court into Mr Bosmans's 26 September 1990, outlined the offending:

The Offences: > > Mr Bosmans readily admitted his committal of the offences and appears sincerely remorseful. He claimed he did not initiate the initial sexual contact with any of the three boys and, that, they constantly sought Mr Bosmans company has been borne out by those spoken to for the preparation of this report While admitting he enjoyed the contact with the two elder boys he stated he did not with the younger but felt pressured to comply. In spite of his concern as to the outcome of this Court appearance Mr Bosmans has expressed relief that his relationships with the boys has ceased. He stated that at the time he did not think he was harming them in anyway but now, having sought psychiatric assistance, he is aware of the potential danger such behaviour does present and of the responsibilities of his role as the adult. He has stressed his intentions of never allowing a similar situation to arise in the future. He is well aware of the serious of his position and is fearful a gaol sentence may result. > > Assessment: > > Mr Bosmans presents as a passive, insecure, well meaning man who has a somewhat simplistic and naive outlook on life. He lacks in self esteem and currently seems withdrawn. In other areas of his life he seems responsible, reliable and honest. His motivation and response in attending for regular psychiatric counselling over the past fifteen months is reassuring and he appears to have gained considerably in insight and awareness. > > The psychiatrist indicated that he did not envisage it would be necessary to continue the counselling for a further extended period but considered that a group situation where assertiveness training and social skills were gained would be beneficial. > > His committal of the offences would appear to have been opportunistic and this combined with the traumatic and sobering effect his arrest and subsequent court appearances have had would imply that the risk of his re-offending is low.

Primary Consideration 1: Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct (paragraph 8.1)

1. The Direction requires the Tribunal to keep in mind that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government and 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 (8.1(1)). The Tribunal must have particular regard to the principle that remaining in Australia is a privilege, given the expectation that non-citizens are law-abiding, respect important institutions and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
2. This primary consideration also requires the Tribunal to consider two specific elements: the nature and seriousness of a non-citizen's conduct to date; and the risk to the Australian community, should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct (8.1(2)(a)-(b)).

The nature and seriousness of the conduct (paragraph 8.1.1)

1. Mr Bosmans accepted he had been convicted of serious crimes and as such he failed the character test. However, Mr Bosmans maintained he was innocent and wrongly convicted of the 2024 conviction and had not committed several of the acts claimed in his 1990 conviction.

1. Mr Bosmans, in his oral evidence to the Tribunal, maintained his innocence to his 2024 conviction and was adamant he had suffered a miscarriage of justice as he had not been afforded the right to address at his appeal application.
2. Mr Bosmans submitted that there was no DNA evidence, no photographic evidence, and there were no eyewitnesses to his 2024 convictions and it cannot be, because it never happened. The only evidence had been the word of one child. Mr Bosmans submitted that at all times whilst the child was in his home there were always other people present and they all testified they had never seen anything inappropriate take place. Mr Bosmans submitted the child's uncle had previously been living with him, but Mr Bosmans had asked him to leave because of his drug habit. Mr Bosmans submitted it was the child's uncle who had concocted the allegations to get Mr Bosmans in trouble.
3. Mr Bosmans submitted in respect of his 1990 convictions he had not engaged in a sexual relationship with the boys as described in the summary of facts put to the Judge. Mr Bosmans denied vehemently he had been performing oral sex on any of the victims, claimed the two victims who he accepts he offended against initiated the sexual contact and denies sexual offending against the third victim.
4. Mr Bosmans submitted he was facing double jeopardy, that the system was taking a second bite to try to punish him even more than he had already been. He submitted he has been sentenced and served his time but now he was being tried again and faced being sent back to a country he had not lived in since he was a boy.
5. Ms Bosmans accepted the 1990 offending he agreed he participated in was wrong and should never have happened.
6. Mr Bosmans did not contest he failed the character test as he acknowledged he had been convicted of the charges.

1. The Respondent's representative contended that the nature and seriousness of Mr Bosmans's conduct weighs heavily in favour of exercising the discretion to affirm the decision to refuse revocation of the cancellation decision.
2. The Respondent's representative contended that Mr Bosmans's offending should be viewed as very serious by the Tribunal for the following reasons:

First, Mr Bosmans has, on two separate occasions, been convicted of crimes of a sexual nature against children. Under paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a)(i) and (ii), such crimes are considered by the Australian Government and community as very serious.

The Respondent's representative submitted in respect of the 2024 conviction, the sentencing remarks outline the factual basis upon which the Applicant was sentenced. In summary, the offending occurred on about or up to 20 occasions over an 11-month period between 30 April 2021 and 30 March 2022. The victim was a male child who was entrusted to the Applicant's care while his mother was at work. The offending conduct included Mr Bosmans

"...placing your mouth upon the child's penis and licking the child's penis and having the child reciprocate in that sort of behaviour towards you. On one instance, the child described your behaviour as humping and he referred to an analogy involving his pet dog engaging in that sort of behaviour. It suggests there was some form of contact involved - sexual contact involved in that conduct".

The sentencing judge remarked that the offending has a "particularly troubling background" and constituted a "significant and egregious breach of trust" that had been invested by the victim's mother in Mr Bosmans.

The Respondent's representative submitted in respect of Mr Bosmans's convictions for sexual offences against minor children in 1990, the statement of facts outline that the offending occurred between January 1985 and July 1988. The victims were three male children aged between 9 and 13 years old. The sentencing judge described that the offending involved "repeated instances" of the applicant "fondling the boys' penises or sucking them". The statement of facts reflects the Applicant offended against the first victim on more than twenty occasions; against the second victim on two occasions; and against the third victim on one occasion. The sentencing judge concluded these were "objectively serious" offences and "must be observed in an even graver fashion" given the victims were under his authority.

Second, Mr Bosmans was convicted of assault officer in execution of duty on 8 August 2001. The Respondent's representative submitted whilst the circumstances of that offending were unknown nevertheless, the offence, on its face, encompasses a crime committed against a vulnerable member of the community, namely an officer in performance of their duties, which is again considered a serious offence (paragraph 8.1.1(1)(b)(ii) of Direction 110).

Third, regard must be had to the fact that Mr Bosmans has been sentenced to terms of imprisonment for his offending (paragraph 8.1.1(1)(c) of Direction110). The Respondent's representative submitted sentences involving terms of imprisonment are the last resort in the sentencing hierarchy. 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.

Fourth, the impact of Mr Bosmans's most recent offending on the victim is very serious (paragraph 8.1.1(1)(d) of Direction 110). The sentencing judge found the offending had a significant financial impact upon the victim and his family, who have had to relocate. His Honour further observed that:

"...no doubt, the mother feels a great deal of anxiety associated with what she would - what she justifiably, I expect, would consider occasioned the offending, that is, by reason of some failing of her part. Of course, there was none but nonetheless, she would no doubt feel guilt because of this offending happening as it did. I have little difficulty accepting, as I say, the matters that she speaks about including the need for ongoing attention for the complainant child".

The Respondent's representative submitted the victim impact statement prepared by the victim's mother canvasses the deleterious consequences of the applicant's offending on the victim as well as herself, her younger daughter and other extended family. Of particular note is that she was required to leave her long-term employment and home, stating "we spent 6 months living in a lounge-room, struggling financially and emotionally whilst we tried to rebuild our lives and find a place to call home"; the victim still required fortnightly psychological treatment more than two years after the offending and he continues to struggle with trust, relationships, self-esteem and controlling his emotions.

Fifth, The Respondent's representative submitted Mr Bosmans has plainly been a frequent offender, not only because of the number of criminal convictions dating back to 1990, but also in respect of his most recent conviction which involved a repeated course of offending conduct over an 11-month period. Further, his criminal history reflects a trend of increasing seriousness given his convictions for largely low-level offences between 1999 and 2001, and his conviction for maintain unlawful relationship with a child in 2024 (paragraph 8.1.1(1)(e) of Direction 110).

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

1. This part of the primary consideration requires the Tribunal to have regard to the Government's view that 'the Australian community's tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases' (8.1.2(1)).

1. Mr Bosman in his oral evidence rejected he was a risk to the Australian community.
2. Mr Bosmans contended he had not reoffended, stating:

Well to start with I - I've always said that I never committed this crime to start with and you all say, "to reoffend". > > I can't reoffend something that I didn't do in the first place. > > So therefore, the term "reoffend" is incorrect to, to the way, as I explained, if I am not guilty, which I am not of this crime, then reoffending is not a thing that - you can't reoffend something that you never did in the first place.

3. Mr Bosmans contended if he was such a risk to the community then it was Australia's responsibility to ensure he did not offend again.

You're wiping all that responsibility, sending me to another country and letting another country deal with it. > > If you really believe that I'm guilty of this... then you should take that responsibility. > > Australia should take that responsibility. > > ... > > You're going to dump me into another country and not take responsibility of me and my - my so called crime, because you probably can't really do much about it once I once I've finished my time.

4. Mr Bosmans contended he could not explain why his 2024 offending happened as he never committed the offence, and it was for others to produce the evidence that he had.

So, unless you can prove that I actually did it and not go by the he-say of one 10-year-old boy who I believe was put-up, please produce the evidence and - and show me that I did it, because he can't, because there is no evidence. > > There never was any evidence and there never will be any evidence.

5. Mr Bosmans submitted he had undertaken counselling for his 1990 offences as his lawyer had advised he should plead guilty as he would get a lighter sentence. Mr Bosmans submitted he rejected that now as it had come back to bite him, as he was now facing deportation. Mr Bosmans submitted the report of Dr David Koziol, Consultant Psychiatrist, dated 24 August 1990 should be relied upon by the Tribunal as he had been treated by Dr Koziol for over 12 months. Dr Koziol's report opined:

Overall, I believe that there has been a gratifying response to treatment with respect to Mr Bosmans' attitudes, self understanding, emotional state and behaviour. I firmly believe that the legal proceedings to this date have had a major deterrent effect on Mr Bosmans and that the risk of his repeating his sexual involvement with juveniles is low. His prognosis is judged to be good.

6. Mr Bosmans submitted he had not advised Dr Koziol he disputed having oral sex with the boys and had not offended one of the boys, as he had been found guilty, 'what was done was done' and he wanted to get on with his life, serve his period in detention, see the psychiatrist and be done with the whole mess.
7. Mr Bosmans submitted he had not undertaken any course or treatment to deal with his 2024 offending as it never happened and doing the training would be admitting that it had.
8. Mr Bosmans contended he was not a risk to anyone and would not reoffend as he has not reoffended.

1. The Respondent's representative highlighted that the Direction holds that tolerance for future offending reduces with its seriousness, and therefore contended that very heavy weight against revocation should be placed on this primary consideration. As Mr Bosmans's offending was obviously very serious, the Australian community's tolerance of risk of future harm should be regarded as low.
2. The Respondent's representative submitted the extreme seriousness of the nature of the harm in the present matter is readily apparent, given the nature of the offending and the sentencing judge's recognition of the impact on the victim and his mother.
3. The Respondent's representative submitted paragraph 8.1.2(1) of Direction 110 provides that some conduct and the harm that would be caused if it were to be repeated is so serious that any risk of repetition may be unacceptable. The Respondent's representative submitted in light of Mr Bosmans's conviction for maintain unlawful relationship with a child, and noting his convictions in 1990 on similar charges, this was such a matter where any risk is unacceptable.
4. The Respondent's representative submitted in relation to the risk of re-offending, Mr Bosmans has not provided an explanation for any of his criminal history. His personal circumstances form merely states, "I plead not guilty - doing an appeal currently to the sentence imposed". Nor do the sentencing remarks give any indication of what factors may have contributed to his offending. The Respondent's representative submitted Mr Bosmans' appeal against his 2024 conviction was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 1 December 2025.
5. The Respondent's representative submitted in Mr Bosmans's own words, he is in the 'twilight of his life' and has 'no desire' to reoffend. The Respondent's representative contended this should offer little solace to the Tribunal particularly as his most recent offending was relatively recent and took place when he was in his sixties.
6. The Respondent's representative submitted on the current evidence, it remains unclear what motivated Mr Bosmans' previous offending and what might cause it to happen again. The Respondent's representative contended so long as the drivers of his offending remain obscure, the means of him avoiding such offending are equally obscure, noting the decision of DP O'Donovan in Kostandy v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2025] ARTA 1047.
7. The Respondent's representative submitted notably, the psychiatric reports completed prior and subsequent to his sexual offending in 1990 suggest that because of sexual experiences in his own childhood, he was unaware such behaviour was "abnormal" and "immoral", however the report went on to note regular psychiatric intervention between May 1989 and August 1990 resulted in a positive shift in his attitude towards his behaviour. The Respondent's representative contended given his recent offending was nearly identical in nature, this explanation and evidence should be afforded minimal weight.
8. The Respondent's representative contended the Tribunal should conclude that the risk of further offending by Mr Bosmans is unacceptable for the reasons that follow:
   1. Mr Bosmans's sexual offending against children could not be said to be attributable to an isolated lapse of judgment. He has offended against four separate child victims many years apart (1990 and 2021-2022) and his offending against his most recent victim was repeated on multiple occasions over an 11-month period. There were also repeated instances of sexual violence against at least one of his victims from his 1990 convictions. In combination, this suggests a predilection for sexual violence against children.
   2. Mr Bosmans's lack of expressed remorse for any of his criminal history is striking. The sentencing judge noted there was no evidence of remorse by virtue of him taking his maintain unlawful relationship with a child charge to trial. Since his conviction, Mr Bosmans has not shown any remorse or insight and appears to continue to deny his guilt. As a result of his conviction, the Tribunal can only proceed on the basis that he is guilty of this offence, and it is bound by the essential findings of fact made in respect of this conviction.
   3. Mr Bosmans has completed only minimal rehabilitation since his most recent conviction, limited to the 'Build Don't Break - Resilience' program in June 2025. There is no evidence before the Tribunal as to how this course benefited him and/or was related to the drivers of his criminal history. It necessarily follows that there is nothing to suggest Mr Bosmans has participated in any rehabilitation directed to his sexual offending. This is concerning given the sentencing judge specifically structured Mr Bosmans's sentence to assist him with appropriate programs.
   4. There is no independent evidence providing any expert opinion with respect to Mr Bosmans's risk. A report completed by his treating psychiatrist, Dr David Koziol, on 25 August 1990 opined that his risk of "repeated sexual involvement with juveniles is low". This opinion was predicated on the Applicant's "gratifying response to treatment" and that his criminal proceedings had a "major deterrent effect" on him. This report should be given minimal weight given Mr Bosmans went on to reoffend sexually, in a very serious and identical manner, against a further male victim. Whatever understanding he gained of himself and his offending through treatment in 1990, it did not result in long-term behavioural change and plainly, Dr Koziol's assessment of his low risk proved inaccurate.
   5. In the most recent sentencing remarks, the sentencing judge found that an element of community protection was required, noting the offending occurred in circumstances where it can be seen that "you cannot be trusted on your own in the presence of children". It is unclear to what extent that issue has been addressed. Mr Bosmans has not identified any steps he has taken (and will continue to take in the community) to ensure he does not reoffend, and nor has he provided any character references from persons who will support or assist him upon his release.
9. The Respondent contended the Tribunal should be very cautious in accepting what Mr Bosmans now advances was the real state of affairs about his offending as by his own admission in the past he was prepared to be misleading or dishonest to a psychiatrist in relation to offending for personal gain.
10. The Respondent contended the Tribunal should prefer the documentary evidence produced by the courts and police over the inconsistent claims of Mr Bosmans in his oral evidence. The Respondent contended if Mr Bosmans seeks to advance claims in respect of the offending for which he had been convicted he needed to produce evidence to support his claims and he simply had not.
11. The Respondent's representative contended on the totality of the evidence before the Tribunal, the primary consideration of the protection of the Australian community weighs heavily against revocation. The Respondent's representative emphasised that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government (paragraph 5.2(2) of Direction 110).

1. The Tribunal found Mr Bosmans's offending blatantly serious, resulting in devastating impacts on vulnerable children who were entrusted into his care. The Tribunal considered Mr Bosmans' offending as very serious in accordance with the Direction 110 as it was a sexual crime against children.
2. The Tribunal placed no weight on Mr Bosmans' evidence that he maintains his innocence to the 2024 convictions nor that he disputes much of the statement of facts in respect of his 1990 convictions. Mr Bosmans' protestations cannot mitigate the fact he was convicted by the Court on the basis of the agreed statement of facts to which he plead guilty in 1990 nor that he was found guilty at jury trial of his 2024 charges, which has subsequently been upheld on appeal.
3. The overwhelming authority clearly articulates the Tribunal cannot 'go behind' the conviction which has resulted in the cancellation of Mr Bosmans' visa. The Tribunal doing so, noting the full court's finding, would be an error of law. In HZCP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCAFC 202 (21 November 2019) the Honours Justices McKerracher, Derrington and Colvin concluded:

In short, a person who makes representations to revoke the cancellation of a visa cannot advance a factual position that undermines the relevant convictions and sentences as 'another reason' why the original decision to cancel should be revoked. > > The statement by the Tribunal in the present instance that it could not examine the facts upon which the conviction was based, must be understood in a context where the Tribunal was invited to make factual findings that were contrary to those made by the sentencing judge in passing the sentence that enlivened the statutory power to be exercised by the Tribunal on review. It did not mean that it could ignore those facts. It meant that the Tribunal could not scrutinise or go behind those findings when reaching a decision as to whether it was satisfied that there was 'another reason' to revoke the decision under s 501(3A) to cancel the appellant's visa. The Tribunal was correct in that view.

4. The full court has made clear the Tribunal is bound by the findings of the conviction and Mr Bosmans cannot advance a factual position that undermines the relevant convictions. This does not preclude Mr Bosmans from advancing arguments about his character or risk of recidivism nor does it preclude the Tribunal from making a determination of the same as clearly articulated by Honourable Justice Branson in Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Ali [2000] FCA 1385; (2000) 62 ALD 673 at [41] to [45]:

41 First, it seems to me to be clear beyond argument that the administrative decision maker is entitled to receive evidence of a conviction and sentence and to treat it as probative of the factual matters upon which the conviction and sentence were necessarily based (Spackman, Daniele, Gungor and SRT). > > 42 Secondly, the overwhelming weight of authority is that where the conviction and sentence are the foundation of the exercise of the power vested in the applicant by s 200 of the Act, the Tribunal, when reviewing the decision of the Minister, may not impugn or go behind either the conviction or the sentence (Daniele, Gungor and SRT). > > 43 Thirdly, although there is no absolute rule that the Tribunal may not consider material which challenges the grounds on which a prior conviction was based (Ridley at 281-282), policy considerations suggest that the legislature intended that the Act, to the extent that it is concerned with the control in the public interest of the presence of non-citizens in Australia who have been convicted of criminal offences, should be administered in a way which: > > (a) recognises that the criminal justice system is pre-eminently suited to the determination of the guilt of persons charged with criminal offences (see Gungor per Fox J at 445-446); and > > (b) limits inconsistency between decisions of the criminal courts and those of tribunals (see Gungor per Sheppard J at 469). > > As a consequence, in my view, the Act should be construed as requiring a decision maker under s 200 of the Act to treat a conviction and sentence (not being the conviction and sentence upon which the power to deport is based) as strong prima facie evidence of the facts upon which they are necessarily based so as to throw a heavy onus on a person who seeks to challenge such facts to show why they should not be accepted (see Spackman at 635). This heavy onus will, as a matter of logic, be more easily satisfied where the criminal conviction and sentence followed a plea of guilty than where the conviction and sentence follow a contested factual hearing. > > 44 Fourthly, although a decision maker under s 200 of the Act may, in a case in which the heavy onus on a person who seeks to challenge the facts essential to a criminal conviction and sentence (other than that on which the power to deport is based) is satisfied, accept evidence which contradicts such facts, he or she is not entitled to reach or express a view that the person was wrongly convicted (see Saffron per Lockhart J at 592). > > 45 Fifthly, the above limitations on the matters to which a decision maker under s 200 of the Act is entitled to have regard do not mean that the decision maker is not (subject to such limitations) to make his or her own assessment of the entirety of the conduct of the person whose deportation is under consideration, including the nature and seriousness of conduct which led to convictions and the significance of such conduct so far as the risk of recidivism is concerned.

5. The Tribunal found Mr Bosmans had not provided any evidence to challenge the facts of his convictions to any extent let alone the heavy onus for the Tribunal to place any weight on his evidence at the hearing.
6. The Tribunal found, by virtue of the nature of Mr Bosmans' offending, it will have lifelong impacts on his victims and their families.
7. The victim impact statements from 1990 clearly indicate the boys were scared and embarrassed by Mr Bosmans' sexual advances and had not sought his advances. The statements included:

I did not want Hendricks to do these thigs to me and I did not encourage him in anyway. > > When Hendrick was doing these things to me, I did not like it. I did not want him to do it to me. > > Hendrick would ask me, "Do you want to play with this?" and he would get his dick out. I would tell him, "No, No."

8. The victim impact statement from the mother of Mr Bosmans' 2024 victim states:

I am ... the mother of... , the little boy whose innocence you stole and childhood you destroyed! > > I considered you a friend and trusted you to look after my two children. ... trusted and adored you so much that I recall on more than one occasion him stating and asking you if you could be his daddy or grandad. > > What you have done has not only affected ... , his little sister ... and Myself but also close family and friends both emotionally and mentally. The anxiety I feel and PTSD triggers I deal with daily whilst trying to help and support ... is so painful and extremely hard. > > I had to leave my stable job of 4 years and upend mine and my children's entire lives to relocate closer to family and as far away from you as we could get! We spent 6 months living in a lounge-room, struggling financially and emotionally whilst we tried to rebuild our lives and find a place to calf home. > > ... had to see psychologist twice a week and is still requiring fortnightly visits. He still randomly makes comments, reenacts and/or talks about the disgusting stuff you did and struggles majorly with trust, relationships, confidence, self esteem and controlling his emotions. > > The guilt and anger I feel everyday for not realizing and seeing the monster that you are and protecting my children from you is horrible! I will never forgive you for what you have done and I hope you suffer and rot!

9. The Tribunal found Mr Bosmans' offending was frequent and escalating in seriousness. The Tribunal found whilst Mr Bosmans' convictions for sexual offending were many years apart his history of offending and numerous traffic offences indicated a serious disregard for the laws of Australia. The Tribunal noted his Honour Judge Burnet's sentencing remarks in respect of escalation of offending over time:

You come before the Court with a dated but relevant history. You were dealt with in New South Wales in 1990 for an offence that occurred some time in 1988, which involved one offence of indecent assault and another of indecent assault by a person-person under 16 by a person in authority and there were five counts in relation to that. In respect of that body of offending, you were sentenced to three years periodic detention and placed on a self - a good behaviour bond with a recognisance for a period of three years and you were subject to probation and parole supe1vision. You were also directed to undertake psychiatric assessment. > > Beyond that, there are - there is further history which is largely irrelevant, although I do note there is one offence of stalking or intimidating with intent to cause fear of personal injury. There were two counts in relation to that. They also appeared to have occurred some time in 1999. In respect of that offending, you were again subject to a recognisance not to assault, molest or harass victims for a period of two years. You have no relevant Queensland history.

10. The Tribunal was concerned by Mr Bosmans' lack of insight into his offending and his inability to accept that he had in fact inappropriately dealt with vulnerable children entrusted to his care. The Tribunal was also concerned by Mr Bosmans' complete lack of empathy for his victims and his complete failure to accept he has caused them harm.
11. The Tribunal found Mr Bosmans' evidence to the Tribunal demonstrated he had gained no insight into normal societal acceptance that adults owe children a duty of care. Mr Bosmans' evidence in respect of the 1990 convictions, that he maintained he was simply trying to educate the boys, that nothing really happened beyond a bit of skinny dipping, that the boys initiated the sexual contact, and he had not done what they claimed, was not borne out by the evidence. However, what was more concerning was regardless of psychological intervention he had not progressed from his perverse views held in 1990. The Tribunal relied on the evidence of the record of interview with police prior to trial for 1990 convictions:

He discussed at some length the change in his attitude and seeking psychiatric counselling. Claims he saw nothing wrong in what he had done at the time he was doing it, although he admits that he was not anxious for others to find out. Nevertheless did have apparently a simplistic and naive conception of it all. Talked about his responsibilities as an adult and how the boys obviously looked up and admired him. He agreed and said he had often counselled them and they had sought his advice. While he does appear more aware now of his responsibilities in regard to this, I don't think he is still fully aware of the repercussions both to himself and all to the boys emotionally or consequentially.

Respondent's representative: But the really important point is that you did this for your own sexual gratification or pleasure. Do you agree with that? > > Mr Bosmans: Not really. > > Respondent's representative: What do you say was the reason? > > Mr Bosmans: The reason? > > Respondent's representative: Well, if it wasn't for your own pleasure, what was it for? Why were you doing this? > > Mr Bosmans: I was allowing the boys to experience the things that they hadn't experienced before, and I didn't think it would be any harm in doing what we did at the time, I didn't see any harm in it. I - I just thought that it would broaden their way of life in that they would see more of an adult type life situation. I, I, I know my thinking on - on to, to know rethink it. It probably wasn't the right fault of mine that I had, but I thought I was allowing them to, to teach them things of life that they weren't being taught by anybody else. > > It, it, it might not have been the right, the right frame of mind that I was using, but to me it seemed all right to teach them things that they hadn't been taught before while they were interested in trying to experiment themselves with their sexualities and stuff like that. > > ... > > Mr Bosmans: Just yeah, just opportunity that there was that it was there that it, it, it, it happened because they wanted it to.

13. The Tribunal found the evidence demonstrated Mr Bosmans' offending was very serious and weighed strongly against revocation of the determination.
14. The Tribunal finds the application of weight to Primary Consideration 1 complex as there are many factors involved. The Tribunal finds the first part of the consideration, the nature and seriousness of the offence, weighs heavily against revoking the mandatory cancellation of the visa, as Mr Bosmans' actions are serious and do represent conduct and the harm they would cause, if repeated, are so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable.
15. In terms of the second part of the consideration, the risk of reoffending, the Tribunal finds Mr Bosmans presents a real and significant risk of reoffending. The Tribunal relied on his Honour Judge Burnet's sentencing remarks in respect of his rehabilitation prospects:

So far as sentence is concerned, I take into account, of course, that with trial, there is no evidence of remorse. Your general antecedents, the impact of this offending upon the victim and the victim's extended family. That includes, in particular, his mother. > > Both general and specific deterrence, I think, are important sentencing considerations here, partiicularly specific deterrence, having regard to the length of time over which this offending occurred, as I have said, up to 20 occasions in circumstances where you engaged in - in an egregious breach of trust. > > I think also, having regard to these factors, there is also an element of community protection required. This offending has occurred in circumstances where it can - it can be seen that you cannot be trusted on your own in the presence of children. Rehabilitation is not beyond you even though you are now a man in your late or mid to late 60s but nonetheless, it is important, from the community's perspective, to assist you in your rehabilitation and for that reason, I will structure the sentence to assist you with appropriate programs.

16. The Tribunal found on the evidence Mr Bosmans had little to no insight or remorse for his offending. The Tribunal found there were no protective factors to ensure Mr Bosmans was not a risk of reoffending.
17. The Tribunal found on the evidence Mr Bosmans' offending was not merely opportunistic but calculated, and his evidence to the Tribunal clearly indicated he had no appreciation of the vulnerability of children. The Tribunal placed no weight on Dr Koziol's report as it was significantly dated and based on incorrect factual information from Mr Bosmans. The Tribunal also considered Mr Bosmans' evidence to the Tribunal indicated he had not absorbed any of the treatment imparted by Dr Koziol as his continual explanation of his behaviour was still concerning.
18. The Tribunal found no evidence Mr Bosmans had sought any form of rehabilitation in respect of his most recent offending. The Tribunal accepted Mr Bosmans had undertaken a general resilience course. The Tribunal relied on Mr Bosmans' evidence at the hearing that he had not attempted to seek help for his offending:

Well, the way that I, that I see it is that they do have programmes, they do have some sort of programmes that where you can go and do a programme for sexual offences. > > But since I never committed that crime, I to me that'd be like admitting that I did it and I never did. > > So therefore, I haven't taken any of these classes. > > ... > > The, the, the, the only programme that that I was asked about was the resilience course. > > ... > > It's, it's about being able to be resilient, to be able to cope with different things, to be able to say no to things and to be able to make more correct judgments than what you did in the past. > > ... > > To be resilient, you got to be able to bend in the wind and bounce back.

19. The Tribunal did not consider on the evidence Mr Bosmans had recognised the seriousness of his behaviour, show remorse, regret, culpability and empathy.
20. The Direction clearly identifies that some forms of conduct and harm are so serious that any risk they may be repeated is unacceptable. The Tribunal considered Mr Bosmans' offending would fall under this consideration.
21. The Tribunal considered the nature and seriousness of Mr Bosmans' offences weighs heavily against revoking the mandatory cancellation of the visa. Mr Bosmans' offences are such that this factor must weigh against him.

Primary Consideration 2: Family violence committed by the non-citizen

1. The Direction requires the Tribunal to consider whether a non-citizen has been convicted of any offence or had charges proven that involve family violence.
2. Mr Bosmans submitted he had never engaged in family violence.
3. The Respondent submitted there was no evidence that Mr Bosmans had engaged in family violence and accordingly, contended this consideration should be assigned neutral weight.
4. The Tribunal finds there is no evidence that this primary consideration is engaged.

Primary Consideration 3: The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia

1. There are several elements to this consideration. It requires consideration of any impact of a decision on a non-citizen's immediate family members in Australia who are citizens or have a right to permanently reside in Australia (8.3(1)).
2. The Tribunal must also give consideration to a non-citizen's ties to the community more broadly, having regard to the length of residence in Australia, whether they arrived as a child and the strength, nature and duration of ties to any family or friends who are Australian citizens (8.2(a) & (b)).

1. Mr Bosmans, in his oral evidence to the Tribunal, submitted he:
   • had lived for 55 years in Australia, loved Australia and felt Australian
   • had worked hard, paid his taxes, paid all fines he had received, served his custodial sentences and contributed to the Australian society
   • had cared for his mother for many years until her death in 2012
   • had cared for his ex-wife even after they were separated until her too early death
   • had no ties to Belgium beyond his citizenship
   • had promised his father, on his father's death bed, that he would retain his Belgian citizenship, and he had honoured that promise
   • was not in contact with any of his family in Australia having cut off ties and lost contact when he relocated from New South Wales to Queensland
   • had many friends in both New South Wales and Queensland
   • had been sharing a house with a friend Mr M B and his two adult sons before going to jail
   • had invited Mr M B and the boys to move into his house as they were struggling to find housing and combined, they could afford the rent
   • took care of the cooking and cleaning for the household as he was not working
   • had left most of his possessions including his furniture and car with Mr M B when he went to jail and Mr M B has said he was welcome to move back in with them when released and there would always be a place for him there
   • had lost all his phone numbers whilst in prison and has been unable to contact anyone since, prior to this he had spoken to Mr M B and his son on the phone while in prison
   • had a strong bond with his friend Ms MW who he considered his sister, who had allowed him to live with her before his went to jail
   • had been acting as a carer for Ms MW
   • had provided support and care to many friends and neighbours over the years and this should count for something
   • had contributed significantly to the community in his role as a carer to his mother and ex-wife, and he had received no support from anyone during this difficult time, most particularly neither of his brothers had offered any support or care for their mother
   • had remained in contact with his eldest brother and his sister-in-law until his brother's death and since then had lost contact with his sister-in-law
   • wanted to be able to stay close to his parents' graves as he was very close to them, and he would be devastated not to have contact with their final resting place
   • he had a very strong bond with Mr M B and the boys as he had helped them out a great deal
   • Mr M B and the boys would be very disappointed if he was removed from Australia
   • he had intended to continue to provide care to Ms MW until her death as she was in her 80's
   • Ms MW would be very disappointed if he was removed from Australia
   • several other friends would be concerned also for his wellbeing if they knew he was not allowed to stay in Australia
   • he may seek to make contact with his family when released from jail but would not be able to do this from Belgium
2. Mr Bosmans contended he wanted to be allowed to stay in Australia as it was his only home, he had studied here, worked here and contributed to the Australian community. That after 55 years he should be allowed to remain in Australia to see out his final days.

1. The Respondent's representative submitted Mr Bosmans' immediate family members were limited to his two brothers, with whom he is not in contact. The Respondent's representative submitted neither of Mr Bosmans' brothers have provided a letter of support of any kind, and there is otherwise no information regarding the impact the Tribunal's decision will have on them.
2. The Respondent's representative submitted Mr Bosmans has further reported having 5 nieces/nephews in Australia, whose names and ages have not been identified. The Respondent's representative submitted there was no corroborating evidence in respect of their relationship with Mr Bosmans, and nor is there any indication they remain in contact with him. The Respondent's representative contended for these reasons the Tribunal should give their interests very little weight.
3. The Respondent's representative submitted whilst Mr Bosmans has resided in Australia for over 50 years, there was limited evidence of his ties to Australia as he had a limited work history as a spray painter between 1989 and 1991, as a carer for his late mother and has been on a disability support pension since 2012. Additionally, there was limited evidence of community activity beyond his claims to have volunteered in the community, of which there is no independent evidence. There was also no evidence from any friends to support Mr Bosmans' claims of strong ties to Australia.
4. The Respondent's representative acknowledged Mr Bosmans' contention he has a very deep bond with his parents who are both buried in Australia.
5. The Respondent's representative contended overall, this consideration weighs in favour of revocation, however this consideration is outweighed by the other primary considerations which weigh heavily in favour of non-revocation.

1. The Tribunal notes there was no dispute that Mr Bosmans had ties to Australia and that he had spent his formative years in Australia. It was also accepted Mr Bosman had ties to Australia as he had been educated here, worked here, inclusive of caring for his mother, his immediate family live here and he'd had numerous friends here. There was also no dispute Mr Bosmans had been living in Australia for a very long time and had only returned to Belgium for a short visit with his mother.
2. The evidence before the Tribunal certainly indicated Mr Bosmans has lived in Australia for 55 years, having arrived here as a child of 12, but beyond that there was little to no evidence of Mr Bosmans' ties to Australia. Mr Bosmans' own testimony was he had no contact with his immediate family and little contact with any of his friends since being in prison. The Tribunal accepts there were issues in Mr Bosmans' obtaining letters of supports from his friends, but the Tribunal received no response from any of Mr Bosmans' nominated referees in respect of his appeal application.
3. The Tribunal accepts Mr Bosmans' desire to remain in Australia as it is the only home he has really known. The Tribunal also accepts Mr Bosmans' wishes to remain close to the burial place of his parents. The Tribunal finds little else that ties Mr Bosmans to Australia.
4. The Tribunal finds that this Primary Consideration weighs slightly in favour of revocation.

Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision

1. The Tribunal must determine whether or not a decision not to revoke the visa cancellation is in the best interests of a child affected by the decision (8.4(1)). The interests of children should be considered individually, and a range of specific factors are identified as relevant (8.4(3)-(4)).
2. Mr Bosmans has not claimed, and there is no information to suggest, that a minor child would be affected by a non-revocation decision in the present matter.
3. The Tribunal finds there is no evidence that this primary consideration is engaged.

Primary Consideration 5: Expectations of the Australian community

1. This consideration expresses that where a non-citizen has breached the expectation that they obey the law, or engage in serious conduct in breach of the expectation, that they not be allowed to remain in Australia (8.5(1)). The Direction also provides that non-revocation may be appropriate due to the particular nature of character concerns that arise, including from acts of family violence, and commission of crimes against government representatives or officials, regardless of whether there is a measurable risk of physical harm to the Australian community (8.5(2)-(3)). The Tribunal is not to conduct an independent assessment of what might constitute community expectations in a particular case (8.5(4)).
2. The Direction highlights specific categories of identified offences: 8.5(2)(a) - acts of family violence; 8.5(2)(c) - commission of serious crimes against, inter alia, women and children, and serious crimes of a violent or sexual nature; 8.5(2)(d) - commission of crimes against government representatives due to the positions they hold, or in the performance of their duties.

1. Mr Bosmans submitted he had lived in Australia for 55 years, should be allowed to stay, he had served his sentence and should not be punished again.
2. Mr Bosmans submitted that it was Australia's responsibility to look after him and if he was genuinely guilty then it was Australia's responsibility to ensure he would not commit such offences again. Mr Bosmans submitted that it was wrong to push him onto another country.

1. The Respondent's representative contended the Direction clearly outlines this is a deemed expectation of the Australian community and it is not for the Tribunal to determine for itself what the community's expectations are in a particular case. The question for the Tribunal is what weight to give these expectations.
2. The Respondent's representative contended that the Tribunal should give significant weight to this consideration in favour of a determination that there is not another reason for revoking the visa cancellation. The Respondent's representative submitted that the Australian community would expect Mr Bosmans should not hold a visa on account of the serious crimes he has committed, including crimes of a sexual nature against children (paragraph 8.5(2)(c)) and those against officials in the performance of their duties (paragraph 8.5(2)(d)).
3. The Respondent's representative contended this factor weighs heavily against revocation, noting the Direction determined this was so, regardless of whether Mr Bosmans posed a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
4. Overall, the Respondent's representative contended that this consideration weighs heavily against revocation.

1. The Tribunal notes that this consideration is a normative statement of the expectation of the Australian community that non-citizens who are not law abiding should not expect to hold a visa. The Direction clearly articulates that acts of serious violence against minor children are identified as raising the kinds of character concerns that enliven the consideration, regardless of whether there is a measurable future risk of harm.
2. When considering this factor, the Tribunal notes the matter of LZGG and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2020] AATA 107 where the Member observed:

In considering the harm and potential risk to the Australian community if the Applicant were to reoffend in the future, the Tribunal is mindful of the nature and seriousness of his offending and the vulnerability of his victim. However, this is mitigated by his remorse, guilty plea, sincere efforts at rehabilitation and assessment as being at low risk of reoffending. > > When balancing the seriousness of the offence and the risk of reoffending, the Tribunal has decided that medium weight in favour of non-revocation is to be given to this Primary Consideration.

1. As Mortimer J said in Tanielu v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 673; (2014) 225 FCR 424 at [127], the visa cancellation and refusal powers conferred by s 501 of the Act involves the evaluation of "competing and conflicting interests as between an individual who may be excluded from Australia and the interests of the Australian community". The relative weight to be ascribed to each consideration bearing on the exercise of the discretion is a question in respect of which reasonable minds may differ. The Direction generally requires the decision-maker to give relatively more weight to some considerations than to others so as to achieve like results in like cases, so far as that may be done without imposing impermissible fetters on the discretion conferred on the decision-maker. The expectations of the Australian community is one such consideration.

4. Before proceeding further it must be emphasised that cl 11.3 does not purport to preclude the decision-maker from reaching his or her own view as to whether the non-citizen should or should not be granted a visa, as the decision-maker must necessarily do. The question that arises on this appeal is not whether the decision-maker is precluded from doing so, but whether the decision-maker's own assessment of the appropriate outcome is relevant to the task of identifying the content of the expectations of the Australian community under cl 11.3 of the Direction. The clause implicitly recognises that the decision-maker's assessment as to whether or not a visa should be granted may differ from the expectations of the Australian community, as the government has deemed those expectations to be.
5. I have accepted the Minister's submission that cl 11.3 is intended to give effect to the principle that the Minister may make a statement of the government's views about the expectations of the Australian community, which statement may be acted on by the person conferred with the power in a particular case, as recognised in Uelese. In my view, the task of the decision-maker is to identify what is the "government's view" about community expectations in the particular case, to "have due regard" to that view and to "generally" afford that view more weight than other non-primary considerations in accordance with cl 8(4). The phrase "may be appropriate" does not permit the decision-maker to equate the expectations of the Australian community (as expressed in cl 11.3) with the decision-maker's own view as to the preferable outcome in the ultimate exercise of the discretion. To construe cl 11.3 in that way would be to ignore the fact that the clause is intended to express a consideration that is capable of being given more weight relative to "other considerations" in the exercise of the discretion, as cl 8(4) of the Direction generally requires. The primary judge was correct to say that importing into cl 11.3 all countervailing factors bearing on the ultimate decision would render cl 8(4) of the Direction unworkable.
6. Having regard to all that is said above, cl 11.3 should be understood as expressing a deemed community expectation that all persons who have committed serious criminal offences giving rise to character concerns should have their visa applications refused. The nature of the character test is such that the deemed expectation will arise in most if not all cases falling for consideration under s 501(1) of the Act, having regard to the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's conduct, assessed in accordance with cl 11.1. The text of the clause emphasises that it may be appropriate to act in accordance with that expectation, so anticipating a class of cases in which it may not be appropriate to do so.
7. The question of whether it is appropriate to act in accordance with the deemed community expectation is in all cases left for the decision-maker to determine in the ultimate exercise of his or her discretion. Flexibility in the decision-making process is reinforced by cl 8(4), which requires no more than that the government's assessment of community expectations is "generally" to be afforded greater weight than the "other considerations" listed non-exhaustively in cl 12. The word "generally" contemplates a case in which the decision-maker considers it appropriate not to afford the expectation of the Australian community more weight than favourable countervailing factors arising for consideration under cl 12. There may be cases in which it is not appropriate to give the community expectations discerned under cl 11.3 any weight at all.
8. In my view, the degrees of tolerance referred to in cl 6.3(5) and cl 6.3(7) are matters that fall for consideration by the decision-maker in the ultimate exercise of his or her discretion. They are factors that may be taken into account in determining whether it is appropriate to give more or less weight to a deemed community expectation of visa refusal that might otherwise arise simply because of the nature of the non-citizen's character concerns or offences.

9. To summarise, as expressed in Direction 65, the Australian community has only three relevant expectations: non-citizens will obey Australian laws when in Australia; it may be appropriate to refuse a visa application where a non-citizen has breached, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they will breach, the expectation that they will obey the law or where they have been convicted of offences in Australia or elsewhere; in a particular case, the refusal of a visa may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences is such that they should not be granted a visa.
10. Understood in this way, community expectations are simply, and informally, expressed as follows: "If you break the law that will be held against you, the more serious the breach the more it will be held against you, and it may even be decisive." This limited expression of "community expectations" by the Government is, one would expect, quite uncontroversial which is an attractive feature given the heterogeneity of views in this area.
11. It is difficult to conceive of a case where an unfavourable character assessment, whether on the basis of the commission of an offence or the risk that an offence will be committed, will be other than against the grant of a visa. In any particular case, the weight to be attached to that consideration because of the particular circumstances of the character assessment may be slight. In another case, because of the severity of the character assessment, the weight may be substantial. Thus, the character assessment, even through the prism of community expectations, may not be decisively against the applicant. In many cases it will not be. That is why the decision-maker must assess what is "appropriate" in the particular circumstances. Nevertheless, an adverse character assessment is necessarily against a visa applicant, to some degree or other; no one will be awarded a visa because they are of bad character.
12. The community expectations, as I construe cl 11.3(1), speak normatively; they are to be applied in every case but they are not expressed in relation to any particular case. This means that it would be wrong for the decision-maker to ask themselves a question along the lines of "what would the community expect in this case?" It is also incorrect to construe the community expectation as expressing or requiring, in any particular case, either the grant or the refusal of the visa. In a particularly egregious case, the weight to be afforded the community expectations would be such that a refusal might be thought to be inevitable, and at the other end of the spectrum a refusal might be thought to be unlikely, but in neither case and in all the area in-between the community expectation will not express or require one or the other. That is a matter for the decision-maker.
13. The Tribunal considered that a finding proportionate to the nature and circumstances of Mr Bosmans's offending, which has resulted in serious harm to the community and lifelong trauma to vulnerable members of our community, needed to be determined.
14. The Tribunal found given the very serious nature of the Mr Bosmans' convictions being indecent treatment of children, that the Australian community would expect his visa to remain cancelled simply because of the nature of the offences. The Tribunal accepts that the Australian community would expect Mr Bosmans' visa to remain cancelled simply because of the nature of the offence.
15. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds this Primary Consideration weighs strongly in favour of affirming the Reviewable Decision. The Tribunal having found Mr Bosmans' offending to be very serious and considering he presents a perceivable risk of reoffending determines a finding proportionate to the nature and circumstances of his offending is that this consideration weighs heavily against revocation.

1. In making a decision under ss 501(1), 501(2) or 501CA(4) of the Act, the considerations below must also be taken into account, where relevant, in accordance with the following provisions. These considerations include (but are not limited to):
   • Legal consequences of the decision;
   • Extent of impediments if removed; and
   • Impact on Australian business interests.

1. The Direction reminds decision-makers to be mindful that unlawful non-citizens are liable for removal from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable pursuant to s 198 of the Act, noting that s 197C(1) provides that, for the purposes of s 198, it is irrelevant that Australia has non-refoulement obligations in respect of an unlawful non-citizen.

1. Mr Bosmans's made no contention in respect of this consideration.

1. The Respondent's representative submitted that while this consideration had not been raised by Mr Bosman as "another reason" for why the cancellation decision should be revoked, it is accepted that a consequence of the Tribunal affirming the decision under review is that Mr Bosman will be liable for detention and removal from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable (ss 189 and 198 of the Act), and will not be able to apply for another visa while in Australia (with the exception of a protection visa) in accordance with s 501E of the Act.
2. The Respondent's representative accepted as found in the matter of Stoneley v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 143 "the legal consequences of a visa cancellation decision is that the former visa holder will be an unlawful non-citizen for the purposes of the Act. By virtue of that status, the person will be liable to be detained, removed from Australia, returned to his or her home country, prohibited from applying for another visa or subject to periods of exclusion and special return criteria: Act, ss 189, 196, 197C, 198, 501E, 501F".
3. The Respondent's representative submitted that these considerations are the intended statutory consequences that follow a decision not to revoke a visa cancellation.
4. The Respondent's representative contended that neutral weight should be given to this consideration in circumstances where Mr Bosmans has not advanced any non-refoulement claims, and therefore the Tribunal can reasonably expect that his detention pending removal to Belgium would not be lengthy.

1. The Tribunal finds that there are no non-refoulement obligations that need to be observed in this situation. Neither Mr Bosmans nor the Respondent sought to pursue this argument noting that international non-refoulement obligations do not arise in this situation as Mr Bosmans was not being removed to a country where he faced the prospect of being subjected to cruel or unusual punishment.
2. The Tribunal finds the legal consequence of Mr Bosmans' visa cancellation would be his removal and inability to return to Australia, the Tribunal noting his Honour Judge Feutrill's recent decision in Rano v Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for Cyber Security [2024] FCA 1003:

Relevantly, the legal consequence of the Minister's decision is that the applicant will be removed from Australia and cannot satisfy the special return criteria in cl 5001 of Sch 5 of the Regulations. In substance, that means that the applicant is ineligible for most classes of visa that would otherwise relate to him. That is not a matter of speculation. It is not necessary to wait for an application for a visa to be made to know that he cannot be granted a visa in any of the applicable classes. Therefore, the practical reality in human terms that flows from the legal consequences of the Minister's decision is that the applicant will be removed from Australia and, thereafter, will be precluded from travelling to, entering and (or) remaining in Australia unless he is able to bring himself within the criteria of a visa class to which the special return criteria does not apply. In much the same way that a legal consequence may be characterised as 'indefinite detention', the legal consequence here may be characterised as removal and 'indefinite exclusion' from Australia. Moreover, in my view, not only is that a legal consequence it is manifestly a purpose of the applicable statutory framework and scheme that includes s 501(3). > > It is evident that a purpose of specifying that the special return criteria be satisfied for the various visa classes in Sch 2 is that persons who have had their visas cancelled under s 501(3) cannot satisfy the visa criteria and, therefore, cannot be granted visas in those classes and lawfully travel to, enter and (or) remain in Australia. It would plainly defeat a purpose of s 501(3) of the Act if persons who have had their visas cancelled on the grounds of national interest could, upon removal from Australia, immediately be granted a visa and return to Australia because all other criteria for the grant of that visa are satisfied. > > It follows that the applicant's indefinite exclusion from travel to, entry and (or) remaining in Australia was a legal consequence of a decision to cancel his visa under s 501(3) of the Act. Accordingly, that was a consideration the Minister was bound to take into account.

3. Overall, based on the other considerations, the Tribunal finds that this other consideration weighs neutral in favour of revocation.

1. The Tribunal must consider the extent of impediments a non-citizen may face if removed to their country of origin, in 'establishing themselves and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country' (9.2(1)). Specific factors to take into account are their age, health, any 'substantial language or cultural barriers', and any social, medical or economic help available.

1. Mr Bosmans submitted he would struggle greatly if he was forced to return to Belgium as he only speaks English, has significant health issues, no family or friends there, no prospect of getting a job and would not qualify for any form of pension or health care as he had never worked there.
2. Mr Bosmans did accept he had spoken Flemish with his mother and had also spoken Flemish when he visited Belgium once in 1997, but contended he was no longer fluent in Flemish. Mr Bosmans submitted that language is a living thing, and he does not have the words for current things such as computer or mobile phone. Mr Bosmans contended he would struggle to be understood in Flemish which would put him at a great disadvantage. Mr Bosmans submitted the average person in Belgium did not speak English. Mr Bosmans submitted he would face many difficulties as he did not write or read Flemish.
3. Mr Bosmans submitted he was taking medication for is blood pressure, cholesterol and anxiety and took painkillers daily. Mr Bosmans submitted he struggled in the cold climate suffering from neck, shoulder and lower back pain and being deported to a colder climate would impact him greatly.
4. Mr Bosmans submitted he had no knowledge of Belgium's health care system and doubted he would be able to access universal health care as he had in Australia.
5. Mr Bosmans submitted he had no savings, would find it impossible to get a job at his age anywhere, did not know how social security worked in Belgium and doubted he would be eligible for any benefits. Mr Bosmans submitted in Australia he would have access to the age pension and would be financially stable. Mr Bosmans submitted he had access to accommodation in Australia as well as support from friends but in Belgium he would be homeless as he had no family or friends there.
6. Mr Bosmans submitted as he had never paid taxes in Belgium he would not be entitled to any benefits and contended he would be destitute in the final years of his life if he was forced to return to Belgium.

1. The Respondent's representative accepts Mr Bosmans may face some difficulties in establishing himself in Belgium, noting his age 67 years and numerous health issues including brittle bone disease, asthma, high blood pressure, diabetes, cholesterol and back, neck and shoulder injuries due to a workplace incident, which was further exacerbated by a motor vehicle accident.
2. The Respondent's representative however contended Mr Bosmans's health issues will not serve as a significant impediment to his removal given Belgium has a universal healthcare system through the use of a compulsory insurance system.
3. The Respondent's representative submitted Mr Bosmans has claimed he will be homeless in Belgium as he does not know anyone, he can only speak English, has never worked in Belgium and will not be entitled to a pension. The Respondent's representative submitted on the evidence they had provided the Tribunal on the rights of Belgium citizens, Mr Bosmans will have the same access to social, medical, mental health support and economic support as other citizens, including a range of social welfare, financial, housing and disability support services.
4. Further the Respondent's representative submitted a lack of language proficiency would not be an issue for Mr Bosmans as recent reports suggest English is commonly spoken in Belgium, noting the country is ranked 9th in the world for high English proficiency among non-native speakers.
5. The Respondent's representative contended any hardship as a result of Mr Bosmans' needing to adjust to life in Belgium would be short-term and therefore this consideration only weighs moderately in favour of revocation.

1. The Tribunal concludes that Mr Bosmans would face numerous difficulties in reassimilating if returned to Belgium as his age, health issues, limited language skills and culture difficulties could be considered a factor.
2. The Tribunal accepted his living standards in Belgium would be similar to Australia and he would have access to numerous services, as any other Belgium citizen would.
3. The Tribunal accepted Mr Bosmans would face significant difficulty in finding employment and housing if forced to return particularly as he has lived the whole of his adult life in Australia and had no support network in Belgium.
4. The Tribunal found that Mr Bosmans would take a considerable time to adjust to life in Belgium and this would greatly impact him.
5. Overall, given that the prospects for employment, housing and financial support, the Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs slightly in favour of revoking the mandatory cancellation of the visa.

Impact on Australian business interests (paragraph 9.3)

1. The Tribunal must consider any impact on Australian business interests if the Applicant is not allowed to remain in Australia, noting that an employment link would generally only be given weight where the decision under s 501CA would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project or important service in Australia.
2. The Tribunal finds that this Other Consideration is therefore not engaged.

1. Consistent with the Direction, the Tribunal has given weight of various degrees to the primary and other considerations. In applying the considerations (both primary and other), information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight. Primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations. One or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations. However, as held in Jagroop v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 48; [2016] 241 FCR 461, 'the weighing process in each case is in substance left, as it must be, to the individual decision-maker exercising the power under s 501'.
2. As the Tribunal has found Mr Bosmans does not pass the character test, it has carefully considered all the evidence before it and weighed up the relevant considerations as guided by the Direction in considering whether there is another reason why the cancellation of his visa should be revoked.
3. Mr Bosmans, whilst accepting he does not pass the character test, contended that the Tribunal having heard all the evidence should set aside the decision under review and substitute a decision to revoke cancellation of his visa.
4. The Respondent's representative contended there was not "another reason" why the cancellation decision should be revoked, and that the Tribunal having heard all the evidence should affirm the determination, particularly as the primary considerations of the protection of the Australian community and the expectations of the Australian community weigh heavily against Mr Bosmans. The Respondent's representative contended the Tribunal was required to affirm the determination as the direction clearly articulates these considerations outweigh the cumulative weight that should be given to the remaining primary considerations and other considerations.
5. Of the Primary Considerations the Tribunal found:
   • Mr Bosmans presented a risk of reoffending and his offending was of such a nature that it must be considered serious. The Tribunal therefore considered that protection of the Australian community weighs heavily in favour of not exercising discretion to revoke the cancellation of his visa;
   • The evidence before the Tribunal demonstrated Mr Bosmans has not been convicted of family violence and found that this consideration was not engaged;
   • The strength, nature and duration of ties to the Australian community weigh in favour of discretion being exercised to revoke the cancellation of his visa. Mr Bosmans has lived in Australia for many years, his extended family reside here and he has friends who would be impacted by his removal; and
   • The Australian community would expect someone who had committed sexual offences against minors not to be granted a visa, and found this factor weighs in favour of not exercising discretion to revoke the cancellation of his visa.
6. Of the other considerations, the Tribunal determined:
   • That the extent of impediments if removed, was engaged, and weighed in favour of discretion being exercised to revoke the cancellation of his visa, finding Mr Bosmans's age, health issues and lack of support networks in Belgium were of considerable impediment to his return; and
   • The Tribunal considered all the other factors were neutral.
7. Having weighed all relevant considerations individually and cumulatively, the Tribunal finds there is not another reason why the mandatory cancellation of Mr Bosmans' visa should be revoked. That is because the three relevant primary considerations favouring non revocation considerably outweigh the combined weight to be given to the countervailing primary and other considerations. As a general principle, the Direction establishes that on this basis his visa should be cancelled.

Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms Caitlin White of Sparke Helmore Lawyers