1. The applicant has a lengthy criminal history spanning from 1997 to 2021, detailed at Schedule 1 of this decision. In summary, his criminal history consists of violent offending, driving related offending and, in more recent times, domestic violence offending.[14]

1. The applicant has a very poor record of traffic offences between 2001 and 2009. During this period, he was convicted of multiple instances of driving without a licence, driving an unregistered and uninsured vehicle, driving without a licence and with more than the prescribed content of alcohol, and numerous offences of driving while disqualified.[15]
2. On 19 June 2006, the Court disqualified the applicant from driving for two years and imposed a term of imprisonment for two years, suspended upon entering into a two-year good behaviour bond. The applicant received the same sentence on 13 September 2009 in relation to further traffic offences. He has no record of further traffic offences since 2009.[16]

1. [Redacted]
2. [Redacted]
3. [Redacted]
4. [Redacted]

1. On 14 June 2016, the applicant was convicted of Stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc harm (domestic)-T2 and fined $500 AUD.[17]
2. According to an NSW police factsheet, the charge related to a text message exchange between the applicant and his ex-wife, Ms [Redacted], on 22 May 2016. During the exchange the applicant wrote:

IT'S EITHER BRING BACK MY GIRLS, OR WE'LL BOTH LOSE! IT'S NOT HARD 2 FIND U IN MILDURA U FUK! I HOPE SUM FUK RAPES U, SO U KNOW THE PAIN LOLO WENT THRU U DIRTY FUCKEN DOG!!" > > "U HAVE FUCKED WITH ME THE LAST TIME!!!!" > > "If ur husband ever lays his hands in the girls I'll kill both of yous!!![18]

3. The applicant also wrote a message in Tongan which stated words to the effect:

Eat shit and if you have the guts you will wait for me to come to Blacktown. You're acting hard over the mobile. You're shit and you don't have money. You talked about my family. Man, I'm going to come down to there and shoot you because you are a shit head that has no money.[19]

4. The following day, the victim reported the exchange to police. On 7 June 2016, the police attended the applicant's home and spoke to him about the allegations. The applicant stated, 'yeah I did send those messages to her because I was angry cause my daughter was raped.' He was taken into police custody and an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order was applied for and served on him.[20]
5. Whilst in custody, the applicant explained that, on 21 May 2016, he was informed by his and the victim's 13-year-old daughter that she was the victim of an aggravated sexual assault, said to have happened some time ago by one of the victim's ex-partners. The applicant said he was infuriated and upset with the victim because he had not been told about this, and that this led him to send the messages. The report noted that the applicant made 'full and frank admissions to sending the messages to the victim out of anger, however stated he did not mean anything by it, he was just very upset.'[21]
6. On 18 June 2019, the applicant was charged with destroy or damage property (DV) and assault occasioning actual bodily harm (DV)-T2. He was sentenced to 12 month' imprisonment to be served by way of intensive correction order, an 18-month community correction order supervised by the Community Corrections Service, and 100 hours of community service work. The convictions relate to an incident on 10 June 2019. The victim was EML, the applicant's second eldest daughter from his first marriage. She was 15 years old at the time.[22]
7. The victim told child abuse unit investigators that on the day of the incident she texted the applicant from her bedroom to ask if she could attend the Samoan Independence Day at Liverpool to spend a few hours with her sister. The applicant replied no, and the victim described herself as having 'chucked a tantrum.'[23]
8. Following further text messages, the applicant entered the victim's bedroom and demanded she unlock her phone. After the applicant observed a message between her and her friend and following a discussion, he formed the view that the victim had lied to him.
9. The applicant slapped the victim across the face multiple times and pulled her hair. He continued slapping her while repeatedly asking questions. The victim fell to the ground and felt bleeding from somewhere. The applicant asked his son, the victim's brother, to retrieve a hammer. The applicant then smashed the victim's phone with the hammer. He continued to ask why the victim was lying and, when she did not answer the question, he hit her across her head and cheeks with the wooden handle of the hammer.[24]
10. The victim estimated she was slapped approximately 15 times and was struck with the hammer handle five or six times. She reported bleeding from her gums, swelling and bruising, and pain to the top part of her head, cheeks, eyes, and forehead. The victim stated that she later cleaned blood from the blinds in her bedroom. Following the incident and on the same day, the victim and the applicant spoke. The applicant conveyed that he should not have done that to her. The victim again asked to go to the Samoan Independence Day and the applicant permitted her to go.[25]
11. In a statement to the Department dated 6 April 2022, the applicant alleged that about a week before the incident, he received nude images of the victim on his phone. He stated that he confronted the victim, who said she had recently broken up with her boyfriend and that he was acting in revenge. The applicant stated that the ex-boyfriend had the applicant's number because the victim had previously used the applicant's phone to text and call him. The applicant stated he grounded the victim and limited her activities to school, work, her grandmother's home, and scouts.[26]
12. The applicant stated that, on the day of the incident, the victim asked to attend the Samoan Independence Day festival with her older sister. He initially refused. He then said she could go but only after the applicant's partner returned home to take care of his younger children. The victim returned to her room and sent the applicant a text message that she no longer wishes to live with the applicant and his partner. He stated this made him furious. He went into her room, asked to see her phone and searched it. He said he did not find any calls or messages with the older sister but found calls and text messages with a boy she had just met. He stated he slapped her several times with an open palm and asked her why she keeps lying.[27]
13. The applicant stated he asked his son to bring a hammer so he could smash her phone. He also threw her phone to the ground. He stated he used the wooden handle of the hammer to tap the victim on her head several times asking her whether she had any common sense and slapped her again. He stated he stopped when he observed blood from inside her mouth. He said he calmed down, realised that he had gone too far and apologised.[28]
14. The sentencing magistrate regarded the incident as 'a serious example when it comes to domestic violence.' He noted that, on any view, the victim did not deserve being slapped around the face and then hit with the wooden handle of a hammer. He further noted that although the victims' injuries would heal, the emotional damage would not, particularly given her young age.[29] Magistrate Guy noted:

Yes, there is going to be a level of correction, lawful correction...You are into some form of gaol...Anything short of some form of gaol would be an affront quite frankly against your record and the serious example of domestic violence...Quite frankly you are awfully close to going in full-time. That would not come as a surprise.[30]

15. On 1 June 2021, the applicant was convicted of one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (domestic violence), two counts of common assault (domestic violence) and three counts of contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic). He was sentenced to an aggregate term of 12 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of five months.[31] The sentence was upheld on appeal to the District Court of NSW on 2 July 2021.[32]
16. Those convictions relate to an incident in the early hours of 8 April 2021. The sentencing judge summarised the incident as follows:

[Y]ou had been to the pub and you had had some alcohol, started calling your wife names, told your son to wash the dishes, got upset he was slamming things, slapped him around the left side of his face. Your wife said to leave him alone and you said "Don't start", then your daughter comes and says "You've got no right to touch Mum, you've got no right to touch us". She says that to you a couple of times. As you walked towards her, she said "Dad, you're not in the right headspace. You have no right to touch me", then your wife says "Just leave her alone". You then turned to your wife and said "Just get the fuck out of my face". Your wife said "Just leave. He might calm down and go to bed". There was more abuse. You grabbed your wife by the shirt behind her left shoulder and were saying to her "When are you going to stop lying?". While she pushed you away you punched her in the face. Then you yelled at her, saying "Let the kids see what we're doing. Let the kids see the violence we're going to create". You pushed her into a nearby wall. She covered her face fearing further attack. [EFL] came in and started hitting you, so did OJ and you turned to them and said "What are you going to do?". Your other son [SJL] was now in the kitchen and your wife told him to go and call the police, which he did. When the police turned up and arrested you, you said "I'm guilty of domestic violence. I slapped my missus in the face. I'll tell you back at the station".[33]

17. In summary, the applicant punched FL, slapped his 13-year-old son, OJ, several times to the face, and slapped his 14-year-old daughter, EFL. Each assault was in breach of an AVO.
18. The sentencing magistrate imposed an AVO for the protection of FL and the applicant's children: EFL, OJ, SJL and VSL. The applicant was ordered not to approach or contact them in any way unless through a lawyer, and to attend accredited court approved counselling, mediation and/or conciliation as ordered by this or another court about contact with the children or as agreed in writing between the applicant and FL.[34]
19. The applicant appealed the severity of the sentence to the District Court of NSW. Judge Weinstein found:

There is no doubt that general deterrence looms very large in this sentencing exercise, taking into account that it was domestic violence related. It goes without saying that Parliament has dictated that the courts and the public take domestic violence related offences very seriously...General deterrence and denunciation have a significant role to play in the sentencing exercise, as does specific deterrence in the particular facts of this case, taking into account that not less than two years ago, in June 2019, the offender was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, domestic violence related... in my opinion, the magistrate dealing with this matter was fair and, on one view, kind in the manner in which he imposed the sentence.[35]

20. In his letter to the Department dated 6 April 2022, the applicant stated that on the evening before 8 April 2021 he attended a local pub with FL. He stated it was his birthday the following day and he had the day off, so he wanted to celebrate. He drank about four schooners of beer and won about $3000 on poker machines. He stated that he later switched from drinking beers to spirits, that the end of the evening was a blur and that he did not remember how much alcohol he had consumed. He recalled an argument with FL about money 'as I think my partner [FL] must have lost the winnings back in the poker machines.' The applicant expressed remorse and stated that he is appalled and disgusted with himself. He admitted to committing family violence and stated that he was intoxicated but acknowledged that this was not an excuse for his behaviour.[36]

1. On 14 August 2002, the applicant completed an incoming passenger declaration card and ticked 'no' in response to the question 'do you have any criminal conviction/s?.' In his letter to the Department dated 6 April 2022, he said he incorrectly completed this card because he was under the assumption that a criminal conviction meant one where he has served time in gaol. He stated that he did not intend to mislead or hide his convictions and that he misunderstood the question.[37]
2. The applicant's offending also includes incidents in custody and immigration detention. An inmate misconduct report from Mannus Correctional Centre records that, on 7 September 2021, staff found the smoke alarm in the applicant's room had been covered with a glove. The applicant pleaded guilty to 'interfere with correctional centre property' and was reprimanded and cautioned.[38]
3. An immigration detention client incident report records that, on 29 November 2021, the applicant was observed having a physical altercation with another detainee. Both detainees appeared to use a weapon. The applicant admitted picking up a pool ball and wrapping it in a black t-shirt. He told immigration detention officers that the other detainee had a weapon and that is why he picked up the pool ball to protect himself.[39]
4. In a letter to the department dated 1 June 2022, the applicant stated that, in relation to the incident in immigration detention, he was moved into a three-person room. He stated that, over a number of nights, various people entered the room to smoke cigarettes and ice and spoke very loudly, interrupting his sleep. In his second week in the room, he confronted the other detainee and was ignored, and that the disagreement escalated into the altercation.[40]

1. The matter was heard on 14 January 2026. At the hearing, the applicant was self-represented. Ms Charlotte Breznik of the Australian Government Solicitor appeared for the Minister.
2. In deciding this matter, I have considered:

a) The Remittal Bundle; > > b) The applicant's email submission of 14 December 2025; > > c) The Minister's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (RSFIC) dated 9 December 2025 (Exhibit R1); > > d) A copy of the applicant's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (ASFIC) filed by the applicant's former representative in the original proceedings (Exhibit A1); > > e) The witness statements and a character reference submitted by the applicant on 11 January 2026 (Exhibit A2) > > f) A letter from the Department to the applicant dated 17 February 2023 submitted by the Minister on the first day of the hearing (R2)

3. All documents except for Exhibits A1, A2, R1 and R2 are contained in the Hearing Book (HB). Unless otherwise indicated, all footnote references are to the HB.

1. The Migration Act provides special powers for the Minister to refuse or cancel visas on character grounds.
2. Under s 501(3A), the Minister must cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if the Minister is satisfied that the person does not pass the character test due to having a substantial criminal record under s 501(6)(a) and further specified in s 501(7), and if that person is currently serving a full-time sentence of imprisonment in a custodial institution for an offence against the law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.
3. The character test as set out in s 501(6) of the Migration Act essentially deems that a person does not pass the character test if the circumstances listed in that provision apply. Section 501(6)(a) of the Migration Act relevantly provides that:

(6) For the purposes of this section, a person does not pass the character test if:

(a) the person has a substantial criminal record (as defined by

subsection (7)); ...

1. A 'substantial criminal record' is relevantly defined by s 501(7)(c) of the Migration Act as follows:

(7) For the purposes of the character test, a person has a substantial criminal record if: ...

(c) the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of

12 months or more; ...

1. A person whose visa has been cancelled under s 501(3A) may seek revocation of that decision pursuant to s 501CA(4) of the Act. This provision enables the Minister to revoke the original cancellation if the person makes representations in response to the invitation to do so, and if the Minister is satisfied either that the person passes the character test, or that there is another reason why the cancellation should be revoked.

1. By reason of s 499(2A) of the Act, the Tribunal must comply with written directions about the performance of its functions or the exercise of those powers which are given by the Minister pursuant to s 499(1) of the Act.
2. On 7 June 2024, the Minister made Direction No. 110 under s 499 of the Act, which commenced operation on 21 June 2024 (the Direction). The Direction replaced the previous Direction No. 99.
3. The purpose of the Direction is to guide decision-makers in exercising powers under ss 501 or 501CA of the Act.

1. Paragraph 5.1 of the Direction sets out of the Act. Specifically, paragraph 5.1(2) of the Direction provides:

Specifically, under subsection 501 (1) of the Act, non-citizens may be refused a visa if they do not satisfy the decision-maker that they pass the character test. Under subsection 501(2), non-citizens may have their visa cancelled if the decision-maker reasonably suspects that they do not pass the character test, and the non-citizens do not satisfy the decision-maker that they do pass the character test. Where the discretion to refuse to grant or to cancel a visa is enlivened, the decision-maker must consider the specific circumstances of the case in deciding whether to exercise that discretion. > > (emphasis added)

1. Paragraph 5.2 of the Direction sets out the 'principles' which must be taken into account by decision-makers under ss 501 and 501CA of the Act. These principles 'provide the framework within which decision-makers should approach their task of deciding whether to refuse or cancel a non-citizen's visa under section 501' and are expressed as follows:

(1) Australia has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia. Being able to come to or remain in Australia is a privilege Australia confers on 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 [sic] 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.

2. Informed by the principles set out in paragraph 5.2 of the Direction, the Tribunal must take into account the 'primary considerations' listed in paragraph 8 of the Direction, and the 'other considerations' listed in paragraph 9 of the Direction, where relevant to the decision.

Primary considerations - paragraph 8 of the Direction

1. In making a decision under s 501CA(4) of the Act, the five 'primary considerations' the Tribunal must take into account are:

(i) protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct: > > (ii) whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence; > > (iii) the strength, nature, and duration of ties to Australia; > > (iv) the best interests of minor children in Australia; and > > (v) expectations of the Australian community.

Other considerations - paragraph 9 of the Direction

1. The 'other considerations' the Tribunal must take into account, as far as they are relevant, include (but are not limited to):

(vi) legal consequences of the decision; > > (vii) extent of impediments if removed; and > > (viii) impact on Australian business interests.

Primary & other considerations - further guidance

1. Further guidance as to how a decision-maker is to apply the considerations in

the Direction can be found in paragraph 7, which provides:

(1) In applying the considerations (both primary and other), information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight. > > (2) The primary consideration at 8.1 below (protection of the Australian community) is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations. Otherwise, primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations. > > (3) One or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.

1. The applicant has been convicted of several offences, including domestic violence-based offences. On 1 June 2021, the applicant was convicted in the Local Court of New South Wales for one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (domestic violence), two counts of common assault (domestic violence) and three counts of contravene prohibition/ restriction in AVO (Domestic) and sentenced to an aggregate term of 12 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 months which was upheld on appeal.
2. I find that the applicant has a substantial criminal record within the meaning of s 501(7)(c) of the Act and does not pass the character test under s 501(6)(a). The applicant concedes that this is the case.
3. As the applicant does not satisfy the character test, the remaining issue is whether the discretion to cancel the applicant's visa should be exercised, taking into account considerations in the Direction and any other relevant considerations.

Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct

1. The first primary consideration, in paragraph 8.1(1) of the Direction, focuses on the protection of the Australian community. The Direction requires decision-makers to keep in mind that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government and to that end the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm because of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. Entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, will respect important institutions, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
2. Paragraph 8.1(2) of the Direction provides that decision-makers should also give consideration to:

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

Nature and seriousness of the applicant's conduct

1. Under paragraph 8.1.1 of the Direction, the Tribunal must assess the nature and seriousness of the applicant's criminal offending or other conduct, having regard to the types of crime or conduct viewed by the Government as very serious (8.1.1(a)) or serious (8.1.1(b)). Except for the specified categories, the Tribunal must have regard to the sentence imposed by the courts, the impact on victims and their families where information is available and procedural fairness has been afforded, the frequency of offending and whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness, the cumulative effect of repeated offending, whether the applicant has provided false or misleading information to the Department (including failure to disclose prior offending), and whether the applicant has reoffended after a formal written warning about migration consequences. Where relevant conduct occurred overseas, the Tribunal must also consider whether it would be classified as an offence in Australia.
2. In assessing the nature and seriousness of the applicant's conduct, I have considered the breadth of the offending history, the nature of the harm involved, the presence of family violence (including towards children), and the seriousness reflected in sentencing outcomes. The Minister contended in the RSFIC that the offending is extensive, not isolated, and reflects a consistent pattern that endangers the Australian community.[41]
3. The most serious aspect of the applicant's criminal history is the domestic violence offending, including conduct directed towards children. The 2019 offending involved violence towards the applicants then 15-year-old daughter, including repeated slaps and strikes with a wooden handle of a hammer. The 2021 offending involved assaults on the applicant's partner and children in breach of an earlier AVO issued in relation to the applicant's daughter and resulted in a 12-month custodial sentence. His conduct is of the kind the Direction treats as 'very serious,'[42] and I accept the Minister's contention in the RSFIC that the applicant's crimes include violence against women and children and multiple acts of family violence, together with AVO contraventions.
4. I also take into account the seriousness reflected in the sentences imposed, which the Minister relied on in the RSFIC: an 18-month Community Correction Order, a 12-month Intensive Correction Order, and a 12-month custodial term. While sentencing outcomes are not determinative, they provide a useful indicator of the court's assessment of the objective gravity of the offence.
5. The Minister submitted in the RSFIC and oral submissions that the applicant's past traffic offending is also serious, including 15 driving offences and drink driving at low and middle range PCAs, contending that drunk driving demonstrates reckless indifference toward broader community safety and should be viewed cumulatively as very serious because of the potentially grave consequences on Australian roads.[43] I accept that persistent drink driving and disqualified driving are relevant to seriousness because they expose the wider public to risk. However, their relative weight within paragraphs 8.1.1 is moderated by the fact that the applicant's last recorded traffic offence was more than a decade ago, a matter the applicant emphasised in his written statements.
6. The Minister also relied on the applicant's completion of an incoming passenger card in 2002 indicating that he had no criminal convictions. In his letter to the Department dated 6 April 2022, he stated he completed the card incorrectly because he understood 'criminal conviction' to mean a conviction for which a person has served time in gaol. He stated he did not intend to mislead or conceal his conviction and that he misunderstood the question. The incident, nonetheless, remains relevant to an assessment of candour with immigration authorities, although it is not comparable in gravity to violent offending.
7. Finally, I accept the Minister's submission in the RSFIC that there has been escalation in the severity of the applicant's offending.[44] The evidence supports that the domestic violence offending in later years involved serious interpersonal violence and breaches of protective orders, which is more grave than earlier categories such as traffic offending.
8. Having regard to the totality of the applicants conduct, with particular emphasis on repeated domestic violence including violence against children and breaches of AVO restrictions, I find but the nature and seriousness of the applicant's conduct is very serious for the purposes of paragraph 8.1.1.

Risk to the Australian community should the applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct

1. Under paragraph 8.1.2, the Tribunal must assess the risk to the Australian community should the applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct, recognising the Government's view that community tolerance for risk decreases as the seriousness of the potential harm increases, and that some kinds of conduct are so serious that any risk of repetition may be unacceptable.
2. The Tribunal must make a cumulative assessment of both (a) the nature of the harm that could occur if similar conduct were repeated and (b) the likelihood of the applicant engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct. In assessing likelihood, the Tribunal must consider any available information and evidence about reoffending risk, and the extent of rehabilitation achieved by the time of decision, giving particular weight to any time spent in the community since the most recent offending. Where the decision concerns whether to refuse to grant a visa rather than cancellation or revocation, the Tribunal must also consider whether the risk may be affected by the duration and purpose of the intended stay, the type of visa sought, and whether there are strong or compassionate reasons to grant a short-stay visa.

a) The nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community

1. In assessing the nature of the harm, I have had regard to the fact that the applicant's previous offending has included family violence toward women and children.
2. In the RSFIC, the Minister contended that the nature of the applicant's offending and the harm that would be caused if repeated is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated is unacceptable. The Minister further submitted that the applicant's driving offences should be viewed as very serious as 'it reveals not only a disregard for the laws of Australia, but a disregard for the safety and wellbeing of other road users.'[45]
3. I accept that the potential harm if the applicant were to repeat conduct of the kind previously committed is grave. This follows particularly from the applicant's history of family violence involving women and children, including conduct that occurred in the home and in breach of an AVO. Such harm is not limited to physical injury. The context and victim profiles mean the likely consequences include serious psychological harm, financial harm, destabilisation of children's welfare, and the erosion of safety within the family environment.

b) The likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct

1. The evidence bearing on the likelihood of the applicant engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct is mixed, and I have considered it as a whole, including the parties' competing contentions about rehabilitation and insight.
2. The applicant has repeatedly expressed remorse and asserted change in his written statements. In a statement dated 6 September 2021, he said his incarceration caused grief to his children, that he understood the seriousness of visa cancellation and the real chance of removal, that he returned to his religious beliefs in prison, and that he vowed not to repeat behaviour that would bring him before a court.[46] He said he intended to attend church and undertake courses such as anger management.[47] In his personal circumstances form dated 6 April 2022, he expressed shame about his past traffic offending, described completing a Traffic Offenders Program, and asserted he has not offended since regaining his licence, emphasising that it has been over 10 years since his last traffic offence.[48] He also expressed regret about the 2016 domestic violence offence and remorse about the 2019 offending, describing it as a 'poor choice of discipline' and acknowledging the pain and trauma caused.[49] In the same statement, he addressed the 2021 convictions by stating there was 'no excuse,' that he had reconciled with his family, and that they speak daily and hold daily Bible readings.[50]
3. The applicant also provided extensive certificates for completion of multiple short courses (typically 3 to 10 contact hours each) across a wide range of topics, including anger management, domestic violence, drug and alcohol abuse and parenting.[51] He stated he participated in weekly online SMART Recovery meetings and intended to attend weekly meetings with the church minister if released.[52] I accept this evidence as relevant to engagement and motivation. I also take into account that the applicant undertook these courses on his own initiative, and that the overall number of courses and contact hours is considerable. This supports a finding of genuine motivation to change and to develop strategies to manage his behaviour.
4. On the other hand, the Minister contended in the RSFIC that, although the applicant has expressed remorse, he continues to lack insight and has downplayed the assault of his daughter as 'disciplinary measures' on multiple occasions.[53] That contention is supported to some extent by the way the applicant's conduct was recorded in the sentencing assessment for the 2019 offences, where the applicant described his behaviour as discipline that 'got out of hand' and acknowledged poor anger management.[54] Describing the conduct as 'discipline' does not, of itself, mean the applicant lacks remorse. However, it indicates a tendency to downplay the seriousness of the conduct, which reduces the weight I can place on the applicant's claimed insight into the wrongfulness of violence towards a child.
5. The Minister also argued in the RSFIC that the applicant exhibits behavioural concerns not confined to contextual stresses, drawing attention to reporting that there were no stressors of significance affecting behaviour at the time of the 2021 offence, and contending that behavioural concerns are demonstrated by patterns of non-compliance, including AVO breaches, CSO breaches, failures to attend court, and conduct in detention and custody.[55] The 2021 sentencing assessment report records that the applicant stated there were 'no events or stressors of significance,'[56] that he was significantly intoxicated, that he 'hates violence' and that the offence was 'out of character,' with the author noting inconsistency between attitudes and actions.[57] That internal inconsistency is relevant to whether asserted attitudinal change is stable and reliable.
6. I have also considered evidence from family members that cuts in different directions. FL's letter of 5 April 2022 described the 2021 incident as 'surreal' and asserted the applicant had never shown aggression or anger toward her or their children.[58] By contrast, TL's statement recalled observing 'a lot of anger' and that 'a lot of that anger was released when he was drunk.'[59] This divergence reinforces the need for caution in treating supportive family evidence as dispositive on risk, particularly where alcohol related disinhibition is an identified feature. However, I note that the oral evidence given at the hearing by FL and the applicant's daughters was broadly consistent and, in substance, described sustained behavioural change since his release, including a closer and continuing connection to faith, greater openness about past wrongdoing, and deliberate family discussions or 'meetings' directed at improving communication and relationships. I accept that this evidence goes beyond a snapshot of stability and is capable of operating as a protective factor in assessing the applicant's likelihood of engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct.
7. I am mindful that Corrective Services assessed the applicant as a T2 low risk of reoffending on the LSI-R.[60] This is a significant piece of evidence and I accept it is a professional risk assessment based on structured tools. However, as the Minister emphasised in closing submissions, the Tribunal's task is evaluative and the assessment is not determinative. I also take into account the Minister's submissions in closing that, on appeal, Judge Weinstein was not satisfied the applicant presented a low risk of reoffending notwithstanding the risk assessment evidence, because of the applicant's criminal record.[61]
8. The evidence of rehabilitation since the applicant's release is limited. In his oral evidence, he accepted he has anger management issues and said he completed 'numerous courses' in detention but accepted he has not undertaken any further formal programs in the community. The Minister relied on this in the RSFIC and in closing submissions, contending the Tribunal should not be satisfied the applicant has undergone sufficient rehabilitation. That said, I have also considered the applicant's time in the community since his release without further offending of the kind that led to the cancellation of his visa, including the period in which he lived first with OPL and later with other family members. This is not a substitute for structured intervention, but it is relevant to the Direction's focus on behaviour in the community since the most recent serious offending, particularly when considered together with the consistent witness evidence of improved day-to-day functioning.
9. I have also had regard to the applicant's demonstrated compliance, or non-compliance, with legal constraints, insofar as that informs the assessment of risk and the reliability of any protective factors. The Minister submitted in closing submissions that the applicant has a broader pattern of non-compliance with legal requirements, including AVO breaches, breaches of CSO, failure to attend court and comply with warrants. In addition, the applicant accepted that, after being notified in February 2023 that he was an unlawful non-citizen without work rides, he continued working. The applicant sought to explain this as arising from a perceived responsibility as a breadwinner and apologised for not addressing it earlier. This conduct is not equivalent in gravity to violent offending, but it does bear on whether legal constraints are consistently observed by the applicant under pressure.
10. Viewed cumulatively, the evidence indicates repeated expressions of remorse and motivation to change, supported by engagement with faith and completion of multiple short courses. Those expressions in the applicant's oral evidence appeared genuine to me. There is also a sustained period without further traffic offending, which provides some objective support for capacity to change, at least in relation to driving conduct.
11. However, the core risk issue remains the potential recurrence of serious family violence. The consequences of any recurrence would be grave, particularly given past violence in the family setting and the involvement of children. The community's tolerance for that kind of harm is low. I accept there are protective factors in the evidence, including the applicant's repeated expressions of remorse, his engagement with faith-based practices, the completion of multiple short courses, and the evident support he now enjoys from his partner and children. FL and the applicant's daughters from his first marriage gave consistent oral evidence that, since his release, the applicant has been living within and supporting the family unit, has not displayed aggression, and has become more settled and faith focused, spending time with and guiding the children. The support the applicant currently enjoys from his family is relevant to stability, supervision and accountability. I accept that the applicant's efforts in repairing and improving his relationships is capable of operating as an additional protective factor in a case where the relevant risk setting is the family home. At the same time, it is necessary to approach it with caution because the applicant's partner and some of his children were victims of his prior violence, and the family context is also the setting in which the most serious offending occurred.
12. I am not satisfied that the evidence before me establishes the underlying drivers of the applicant's family violence have been addressed in a sufficiently sustained and structured way, particularly in the community after release. I reach that view having regard to the seriousness and repetition of family violence, including towards children; the history of offending notwithstanding AVOs, the mixed evidence about anger and alcohol issues; the applicant's characterisation of the 2019 conduct as discipline that got out of hand; the inconsistencies identified in the 2021 sentencing assessment between stated attitudes and actions; and the limited evidence of structured, post-release intervention directed to family violence risk factors.
13. I do not make a finding that serious reoffending is likely, having regard to the LSI-R assessment, the applicant's expressed remorse, and the consistent witness evidence of improved household functioning and sustained efforts to repair relationships. The difficulty is that the residual risk of serious harm, even if not assessed as high, remains unacceptable in light of the gravity of the potential harm and the limited evidentiary foundation for concluding that the relevant risk factors have been stabilised and tested overtime in the community.
14. For these reasons, I give primary consideration 1 significant weight against revocation.

Whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence

1. Paragraph 8.2 of the Direction requires the Tribunal to consider any family violence perpetrated by a non-citizen, reflecting the Government's serious concern about allowing a person who has engaged in family violence to enter or remain in Australia, with the weight to be given being proportionate to the seriousness of the conduct.
2. This consideration is engaged where the non-citizen has been convicted of, found guilty of, or had charges proven for an offence involving family violence (8.2.(2)(a)), and/or where there is information from independent and authoritative sources indicating involvement in family violence and procedural fairness has been afforded (8.2.(2)(b)). Where engaged, the Tribunal must consider the seriousness of the conduct having regard to matters such as frequency or escalation, any cumulative pattern, evidence of rehabilitation and acceptance of responsibility, and whether the person has re-offended after being warned about the consequences of further family violence.
3. In the RSFIC and closing submissions at the hearing, the Minister relied on the applicant's convictions for domestic violence offences and contraventions of AVO conditions and contended that the applicant's history reflects repeated family violence overtime, including violence towards women and children, such that paragraph 8.2 should be given substantial adverse weight.[62]
4. The applicant has convictions for domestic violence offending in 2016, 2019 and 2021. The conduct was not confined to one episode and, viewed chronologically, it demonstrates repetition and an increase in gravity. The 2016 conviction involved threats and intimidation in a domestic context. The 2019 offending involved violence towards the applicant's then 15-year-old daughter, including repeated slaps and strikes with the wooden handle of a hammer. The 2021 offending involved assaults on the applicant's partner and two children in breach of an AVO and resulted in a custodial sentence. Escalation from threats to serious physical violence, particularly violence directed to children, is a materially aggravating feature when assessing seriousness under the Direction.
5. The repeated nature of this conduct also has a compounding effect. Family violence of this kind tends to undermine safety and stability in the home, and repeated incidents can produce commutative psychological harm for victims and witnesses, particularly children.
6. The applicant has made repeated written admissions and expressions of remorse. In his personal circumstances form dated 6 April 2022, he described the 2019 offending as 'a poor choice of discipline,' expressed remorse, and apologised for the pain and trauma caused to his daughter. He also stated in relation to the 2021 convictions that there was 'no excuse' for his actions and that he feels sadness when he thinks about the incident.[63] In a statement dated 6 September 2021, he said his incarceration caused grief to his children and that he wished to become a positive role model, and he referred to returning to his religious beliefs and vowing not to repeat behaviour that would bring him before a court. In his oral evidence and closing submissions, he again accepted responsibility and expressed remorse and a desire to change.[64] However, as discussed under primary consideration 1, the evidence provides a limited basis to conclude that the underlying drivers of family violence have been addressed through sustained, structured intervention in the community since he was released into the community. In particular, while the applicant has undertaken a number of short courses in custody and relies on faith-based supports, there is little evidence of ongoing specialist work directed to the dynamics of family violence, anger regulation, for alcohol related risk in the period following his release. That limitation affects the weight that can properly be given to rehabilitation.
7. I have considered TL's evidence about the applicant's anger and the role of alcohol in his past behaviour. This reinforces the importance of sustained interventions directed to anger management and alcohol related disinhibition. The applicant has expressed an intention to remove violence and alcohol from his life, but the evidence does not demonstrate ongoing community-based treatment or monitoring.
8. I accept that the applicant enjoys strong support from his partner and children, which may assist stability and accountability and may, therefore, operate as a protective feature. The applicant's later statements acknowledging the protective purpose of the AVO and expressing resolve not to risk his family again are also relevant. However, that support must be weighed with care because the applicant's partner and some of those children were victims of prior violence. I give particular weight to the fact that the 2021 offending involved family violence in breach of an AVO and consider it a significant aggravating feature. I take the view that the applicant's assurances alone cannot significantly reduce the weight that paragraph 8.2 attracts in this case.
9. Considering these matters cumulatively, while I accept that the applicant has expressed remorse and taken some steps towards rehabilitation, particularly in custody, and that he currently has family support, I find the seriousness of the applicant's family violence is high. It occurred on multiple occasions over a number of years, escalated from threats to serious physical violence, involved violence against children, and included violence in breach of an AVO.
10. For the above reasons, I give primary consideration 2 significant weight against revocation.

The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia

1. Paragraph 8.3 of the Direction requires the Tribunal to consider the strength, nature and duration of the non-citizen's ties to Australia. This includes considering the impact of the decision on the non-citizen's immediate family members in Australia who are Australian citizens, permanent residents, or otherwise have an indefinite right to remain. The Tribunal must also consider other ties to the Australian community, having regard in particular to the length of residence in Australia, including whether the person arrived as a young child, whether offending commenced soon after arrival, and the extent of positive contribution to the Australian community. The Tribunal must also have regard to the strength, duration and nature of family and social links with people who are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, and/or who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia.
2. The applicant's connection to Australia is longstanding and formative. The evidence before me, which I accept, indicates that he arrived in Australia in 1984 when he was four years old and has lived in Australia since then, except for about a year in 1994 to 1995 when he returned to Tonga and attended a local school. This is a period of residence of the kind the Direction contemplates as establishing deep ties. In his personal circumstances form and the statement dated 6 September 2021, the applicant described Australia as the only home he knows, stated he has embraced the Australian way of life, and asserted he has not embraced Tongan language or culture. He also stated that he has no family in Tonga, or at most only distant family whom he has never met and from whom he could not obtain support.[65] TL also described the applicant's household as 'very westernised,'[66] which supports the view that the applicant's day-to-day life has been predominantly Australian in orientation.
3. The Minister accepted that the applicant has significant ties to Australia through long residence, family and work connections but contended that those ties do not outweigh the primary considerations weighing against revocation, including protection of the Australian community, family violence and the expectations of the Australian community.[67] The Minister also contended that less weight should be given to this consideration because the applicant began offending soon after arriving in Australia.[68] On the evidence, the applicant's first recorded offending occurred when he was 17, many years after arrival as a young child. That does not diminish the seriousness of the later offending, but it does mean that this factor is not strongly engaged.
4. The applicant's family links in Australia are extensive and multilayered. He has eight children, including children from his relationship with FL and his daughters from his first marriage. In his oral evidence, the applicant stated that he currently lives with FL and all of his children, including daughters from his first marriage, except TL. The applicant's evidence was that removal would be 'devastating' for his children and he expressed concerns about their wellbeing in his absence.[69] He also stated that financial strain after his incarceration contributed to schooling disruption for some children, including school changes due to loss of his income.[70]
5. The evidence before me also describes substantial extended family ties in Australia. The applicant reported that his father is an Australian citizen, and identified stepsiblings, uncles, an aunt, and six cousins living in Australia.[71] He also referred to nieces and nephews, many of whom are minors, and said he has a close relationship with them and is 'often regarded as the favourite uncle.'[72] These connections support a finding that the applicant's social supports and family identity are embedded in Australia.
6. The evidence about the impact of the decision on immediate family members is detailed and, in light of the evidence presented at the hearing, should be understood as describing a family unit that is presently cohesive and supportive of the applicant's continued presence.
7. The Minister submitted that, as at 21 October 2022, the applicant described his relationship with FL as being at a 'stand still,' and relied on that as a qualifying feature.[73] I accept that, at that point in time, the relationship was strained. However, this is no longer the case. The applicant and FL now have an infant child together, born following the applicant's release from detention.
8. On 11 January 2026, the applicant provided the Tribunal with statements from his wife and from seven of his eight children: OPL, EML, TL, EFL, OJ, SJL and VSL. In her statement dated 27 December 2025, FL reported that she and the applicant have been married since November 2023. She stated that since the marriage the applicant has been a responsible and supportive husband and has made genuine efforts to better himself. She described him as a devoted father who's involved in the lives of all his children and as the 'central figure' in the family. She stated that his removal would affect the children and place an additional burden on her, and that his presence is necessary to preserve the stability, routine and wellbeing of the family.[74]
9. FL's evidence at the hearing was that she would move to Tonga with the applicant and the children if he were removed. She stated she did not fear harm from him in the past, apart from during the 2021 incident, and stated he has not been aggressive towards her or the children since his release from detention. She also gave evidence that he is now more focused on Christian faith and values, spends more time with VSL, teaches the children about faith, and discusses issues with them.
10. The oral evidence of the applicant's daughters from his first marriage also bears directly on the nature and strength of family ties and on the practical impact of removal. OPL gave evidence that she lived with the applicant after his release from detention. She described the relationship as 'rocky' when she first moved into his household when she was about 12 or 13 years old, but she said she maintained regular contact even after leaving at 15. She later returned to live with him in 2019 and has lived there since. She described the applicant as supportive and said she is now able to speak openly with him about her future. She stated he supported her small business and provides advice and feedback, and that he teaches the children Christian values. In a statement provided on 11 January 2026, OPL also expressed that the applicant has changed and has taken responsibility for his past actions.[75] In earlier written statements, OPL stated she experienced suicidal thoughts at a point in her life and that the applicant supported her through that, including by providing emotional and practical support and guidance.[76]
11. EML gave evidence that she has a young daughter and described the applicant's relationship with her child as gentle, supportive and appropriately involved, describing him as a 'loving grandfather.' EML was asked about the 2019 incident and said she did not really fear him at the time, but did experience fear afterwards, though not now. She explained that over time she has observed him as a gentle and better version of himself. She stated she moved back to the applicant's home before her child was born and was not fearful of him. She said she had not experienced fear before 2019 and described it as the first and last time. She said the applicant's removal would be heartbreaking, including because he would not see her or her daughter, and she also relied on his financial support. In her written statement, EML likewise described change and acceptance of responsibility by the applicant.[77]
12. TL also gave evidence that she has a child, who is nearly 2 years old. She described her child's relationship with the applicant as 'fun' and involved, including spending time together and being included in family activities. She was taken to her earlier statement about the applicant's anger, particularly when intoxicated, and explained that she understood this as frustration and stress that manifested after consuming alcohol, and that this is not him now. She stated she recalls yelling, loud swearing and verbal aggression, rather than physical aggression, and confined it to a specific occasion when he had been drinking. She otherwise described him at that time as active and involved in getting children to sports and activities and having family dinners, and said she remains in regular communication with him and finds him to be supportive. In her written statement provided on 11 January 2026, TL noted that the applicant's renewed Catholic faith guides how he leads and supports the family, and that his recent role as a grandparent has had a positive effect on him.[78]
13. I treat this evidence as directly relevant to paragraph 8.3 in two ways. First, it demonstrates that the applicant's ties to his immediate family are not merely historical or nominal. They are expressed through present cohabitation, ongoing parenting roles, and emotional reliance and support that the family members themselves described in practical terms. Secondly, the evidence illustrates the broader family network in which the applicant plays a continuing role, including as a father, partner and grandfather, and supporting extended family members. The written statements from EFL, OJ, SJL and VSL also emphasise the applicant's importance to them and the parental advice, guidance and support he provides. OJ described the applicant as having become more present in the lives of all his siblings and as the 'anchor' of the family.[79] SJL stated that, since his release from detention, the applicant has hosted family meetings and openly discussed issues within the family, which has brought them closer.[80] I accept that the cancellation of the applicant's visa would have a significant impact on immediate family members with an indefinite right to remain.
14. The applicant's ties are also reinforced by a long and stable work history. He reported employment in the rail industry for about 20 years prior to his incarceration, including roles as track certifier, welder, rail adjuster and protection officer. Before that, he worked in construction and warehouse environments, including as a labourer and forklift driver. He stated that his rail work contributed significantly to the Australian community by supporting the safety and reliability of the railway network.[81] The evidence before me includes letters from work colleagues and supervisors describing his work ethic, reliability, respectful attitude, qualifications and skills, and a desire to continue working with him.[82] I place weight on this evidence which demonstrates sustained lawful employment, integration, and contribution.
15. The applicant also described ongoing caregiving and support obligations to his father and stepmother. He reported his father suffered a major heart attack and requires ongoing support, and that his stepmother has a disability and needs assistance with walking. In a written statement, his father stated that the applicant has provided weekly care since the heart attack and that the assistance the applicant and his family provide is crucial to his wellbeing.[83] Medical evidence submitted support the claim that the applicant's father has multiple medical problems and requires family support.[84] The applicant's mother-in-law also described reliance on support from FL and the applicant.[85] These matters further reinforce the practical significance of the applicant's presence for family functioning beyond the immediate household.
16. Paragraph 8.3 is directed to the depth and embeddedness of ties, and on the evidence before me, those ties are unusually strong: residence in Australia from early childhood; extensive immediate and extended family in Australia, present cohabitation with FL and most of the children; ongoing caregiving responsibilities; and a long history of skilled employment and positive work references. The strength, nature and duration of these ties remain a significant countervailing consideration under the Direction.
17. Having considered all paragraph 8.3 factors, I find the strength, nature and duration of the applicant's ties to Australia are very substantial. I therefore give this consideration strong weight in favour of revocation.

The best interests of minor children in Australia

1. Paragraph 8.4 of the Direction requires the Tribunal to determine whether cancellation, refusal or non-revocation, is in the best interests of any child affected by the decision who is under 18 at the time of the decision. Where there is more than one relevant child, the Tribunal must consider the best interests of each child individually to the extent their interests differ.
2. In assessing best interests of minor children, the Tribunal must consider relevant factors including the nature and duration of the relationship between the child and the non-citizen, the likelihood of a positive future parental role, any negative impact of the non-citizen's past or likely future conduct, the likely effect of separation, including the practical ability to maintain contact, the presence of other parental figures, any known views of the child, and any evidence of exposure to family violence, abuse, neglect, or trauma arising from the non-citizen's conduct.
3. The Minister identified the applicant's minor children in Australia as OJ, SJL, and VSL. The Minister submitted that OJ's status as a 'minor child' depends on the date of the decision, because he turns 18 on 26 January 2026. As this decision is being made after that date, OJ is not a minor for the purposes of paragraph 8.4. The evidence also establishes that the applicant and FL now have an infant child born since his release from detention. That infant is plainly a minor and is directly affected by this decision.
4. The Minister submitted that the Tribunal must consider the best interests of each minor child individually and that past family violence is a significant countervailing consideration because of the risk of future exposure to violence. In particular, the Minister contended that OJ was the subject of, and SJL was exposed to, family violence perpetrated by the applicant, and that there remains a real risk of future exposure to violence at home. The Minister submitted it is speculative whether the applicant would play a positive role in the minor children's lives and, while accepting that it may be in the children's best interests for the applicant to remain in Australia, submitted the weight should be moderated in light of the applicant's offending history.[86]
5. The applicant's position was that his children benefit from his presence and that removal would harm them. I accept that the applicant is living with FL and the children and has resumed an active parenting role on a day-to-day basis. The oral evidence from FL and the applicant's daughters was that, since the applicant's release, he has been living with the family, has not been aggressive, and is more settled and faith-focused, spending time with and guiding the children. That evidence is directly relevant to both the nature of the relationships and the likelihood of a positive parental role.
6. In addition, the written statements provided to the Tribunal on 11 January 2006, include references from OJ, SJL and VSL. These statements provide direct evidence of the applicant's role in the family and are relevant to the likely impact on the children's welfare if he were removed. I note that OJ was still under 18 as of 11 January 2026. As noted earlier, in substance, those statements support the view that the applicant's current role extends beyond financial support or discipline and includes engagement, communication, and guidance. VSL is much younger and his evidence is necessarily more general, but it indicates that he experiences the applicant as an important parental figure and source of support within the household. For SJL, the relationship is maintained through ongoing involvement, guidance, and daily family life. This evidence suggests that the applicant's relationship with his sons is close and that, if he remains in Australia, he is likely to continue to play a positive parental role for SJL, VSL and BL.
7. However, the best interests assessment must also take account of any negative impact of the applicant's past conduct and any likely future conduct, including whether a child has been subject to, or exposed to, family violence. I accept the applicant's history of family violence is a serious countervailing consideration. Children's best interests include safety, stability and protection from recurrence of violence. Where there has been past violence in the family environment, the Tribunal must exercise caution in placing weight on benefits of parental presence without properly grappling with risk.
8. FL's evidence was that she did not fear harm from the applicant apart from the 2021 incident and that there has been no aggression since his release. The evidence from the children described a supportive and more stable family environment. That evidence does not erase the historical risk factor and must be treated with appropriate caution, as I am mindful that, in families where violence has occurred, evidence from victims and family members may be influenced by complex family dynamics. Nevertheless, the evidence indicates that the children are currently living in a more stable household with supportive parents and that the applicant is currently embedded in the day-to-day functioning of the household, which is directly relevant to children's welfare and wellbeing now. Removal would therefore have significant consequences either by creating physical separation from the applicant or by prompting relocation.
9. FL's oral evidence was that she would move to Tonga with the applicant and the children if he were removed. This contrasts with FL's earlier written evidence that she would not relocate to Tonga if the applicant were removed.[87] On the evidence presently before me, I cannot confidently reconcile those positions. I proceed on the basis that, whichever scenario eventuates, the disruption for the children would be significant: either through separation from the applicant, or through relocation away from any remaining adult siblings and established schooling, supports and community in Australia.
10. If separation occurs, VSL and BL are likely to be particularly affected because of their age, developmental needs and attachment to day-to-day care. For SJL, evidence supports that the applicant provides guidance, structure and emotional support within the family. Remote contact through phone or video can assist in maintaining connection, but it is not equivalent to day-to-day parenting and household stability. The written evidence from the applicant's sons and the oral evidence describing the present family environment, support the view that the applicant's presence is experienced as a stabilising influence.[88]
11. I have also considered other parental or care arrangements. The children have their mother, who provides ongoing care and support. That is an important protective factor if separation occurs. However, the evidence indicates that the applicant currently contributes significantly to parenting, household functioning, and financial support. His removal would not be neutral for the children even where another parent remains, particularly where the evidence points to increased financial burden, stress and diminished routine during past separation.[89] The written statement from SJL provides direct evidence of his perception of the applicant's importance and the support he provides. For VSL and BL, the evidence necessarily focuses more on routine, attachment and practical parenting rather than articulated views.[90] I have taken the children's views into account to the extent they are in evidence. However, those views are not determinative where there are ongoing safety concerns and a real risk of harm.
12. I have also taken into account the applicant's minor grandchildren, and the Minister's submission that, because the applicant's role in relation to his grandchildren is not parental, their best interests should be given less weight. I accept that submission. The same is true, with even less weight, of nieces and nephews who are minors, given the non-parental nature of the applicant's role in their lives and the limited detail about their individual circumstances.
13. Taking these matters cumulatively, I find it is in the best interests of the applicant's minor children that the applicant remain in Australia. In making that finding, I have weighed the serious countervailing history of family violence and the protective concerns raised by the Minister. However, I give greater weight to the evidence of the family's present circumstances, the applicant's active parenting role within the household, the children's views and their expressed reliance on his guidance and stabilising influence, and the significant harm that would likely follow from either separation or disruptive relocation away from their established life in Australia. I therefore give this consideration significant weight in favour of revocation.

1. Paragraph 8.5(1) of the Direction provides that the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they may do so, the Australian community, as a 'norm', expects the government would not allow them to enter or remain in Australia.
2. Paragraph 8.5(2) of the Direction directs that visa cancellation or refusal, or non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of a visa, may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences is such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not be granted or continue to hold a visa. In particular, the Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they raise serious character concerns through certain conduct including 'commission of crimes against government representatives or officials...in the performance of their duties' and 'commission of serious crimes against women, children or other vulnerable members of the community', in this context, 'serious crimes' include crimes of a violent or sexual nature...' (subparagraph 8.5(2)(c) Direction 110).
3. Paragraph 8.5(3) of the Direction further confirms that the stated expectations apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
4. Paragraph 8.5(4) provides that decision-makers must apply the Government's stated expectations and are not to conduct an independent assessment of those expectations in light of the individual's circumstances.
5. In the RSFIC and closing submissions, the Minister contended that the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws and, as a norm, would expect a non-citizen who has engaged in serious conduct in breach of that expectation not to be allowed to remain in Australia. It was submitted, by reference to FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs,[91] that this is a deeming consideration and it is not for the Tribunal to determine for itself the expectations of the Australian community by reference to the applicant's circumstances or evidence about those expectations. Having regard to the applicant's lengthy and very serious offending, including repeated family violence and serious violence involving women and children, the Minister's submitted that this primary consideration should be given significant weight against revocation.[92]
6. In oral closing submissions, the applicant acknowledged that it is a privilege to remain in Australia and accepted that the Australian Government is entitled to take his offending into account. He emphasised his claimed rehabilitation and change, including taking responsibility for his conduct and expressing a desire not to reoffend, particularly given the harm caused to his family. In substance, his contention was that, despite the seriousness of his past conduct, the community's expectations can be met without removal because of his claimed change, support network, and intention to live lawfully and contribute.
7. I accept the Minister's submission that the expectations of the Australian community in paragraph 8.5 of the Direction are stated in a normative manner. The consideration concerns the expectations of the Australian community as a whole. In applying it, the Tribunal is to rely on the Government's stated views, rather than independently assessing the community's expectations in the particular case. Given that the community expectations are not expressed in relation to any particular case, I reject the applicant's submissions to the extent they invite the Tribunal to determine or moderate the expectation itself by reference to his personal circumstances or claimed rehabilitation.
8. Referring to paragraph 8.5 of Direction No. 99, Horan J in RCLN v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs[93] noted that the Direction does not 'require decision-makers to moderate the expectations of the Australian community in light of the specific circumstances of the non-citizen.'[94] His Honour stated:

The articulation of community expectations is directed to the kinds of criminal conduct or other serious conduct in respect of which the Australian community expects that the Government can and should refuse or cancel visas, "regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community"... > > The assessment of community expectations is therefore not a matter of evidence, and does not turn on the personal circumstances of the individual non-citizen... > > [T]he decision-maker can take into account the personal circumstances of the individual non-citizen in so far as they are relevant to another primary consideration or one of the other considerations, and adjust the relative weight to be given to each of the primary and other considerations accordingly.[95] (Horan J's emphasis)

9. Justice Horan referred to the decision of the High Court in Ismail,[96] which confirmed that a decision maker is not required to attribute to the hypothetical Australian community knowledge of the individual's personal circumstances as known to the delegate.'[97] In discussing paragraph 8.4(4) of Direction 90, which was expressed in identical terms to paragraph 8.5(4) of Direction No. 99 and Direction No. 110, the Court stated:

Paragraph 8.4(4) is to be understood as directing the decision maker not to attempt to infer what the expectations of the Australian community would be "in the particular case" (that is, with the knowledge of the delegate about the applicant's personal circumstances), but to proceed on the basis that the views of the Australian Government set out in para 8.4(1) (3) are the relevant norm described as the expectations of the Australian community. That norm, as applicable by reference to the terms of para 8(1) (3), is then to be weighed with other relevant matters as required by paras 6 and 7 of Direction 90.[98]

10. The applicant has engaged in very serious conduct, including repeated family violence, in breach of the expectation that non-citizens obey Australian laws while in Australia. I find that the Australian community expects that the Australian Government should not allow the applicant to remain in Australia by cancelling the visa. I find that this consideration weighs significantly against revocation.

1. Paragraph 9 of the Direction identifies a non-exhaustive list of other considerations that must be taken into account when making a decision under section 501(1), 501(2) or 501CA (4), where relevant. These considerations include:

1. The Tribunal is required to consider the legal consequences of a decision on a non-citizen, including having regard to Australia's non-refoulement obligations in respect of unlawful non-citizens. This includes the statutory consequences that flow if the cancellation is not revoked, and the practical impact of those consequences on the applicant.
2. While this consideration in the Direction refers to non-refoulment obligations, it also makes reference to detention and removal, highlighting that there are a range of legal consequences of a visa refusal or cancellation under s 501 or related provisions, including unlawful status, the likelihood of being detained and/or removed, and refusal or cancellation of other visas. I consider these matters in their practical operation for this applicant, and not merely by reference to their characterisation as consequences that follow 'by operation of law.'
3. If the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa is revoked, he will retain his visa and be eligible to apply for a new RRV. If the mandatory cancellation is not revoked, the applicant becomes an unlawful non-citizen. As a result, he would be liable to removal from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable under s 198, and in the meantime, detention under s 189 of the Act. Section 197C of the Act provides that for the purposes of s 198, it is irrelevant whether Australia has non-refoulement obligations in respect of a non-citizen. In such circumstances, the applicant would face significant restrictions on applying for another visa. Under s 501E of the Act, an application for a visa other than a protection visa cannot be made from within the migration zone, unless it is for a Bridging Visa R (Class WR) in limited circumstances.
4. Furthermore, certain visas are subject to Special Return Criteria (SRCs). SRC 5001(c) is of particular relevance as it provides for permanent exclusion if the visa applicant previously had a visa cancelled under section 501 and that cancellation has not been revoked under s 501CA. There is no provision for a visa applicant to whom SRC 5001 applies to request a waiver of the permanent exclusion. However, SRC 5001 will no longer apply if the Minister acts personally to grant a permanent visa to a person whose visa was cancelled under s 501. In practical terms, absent personal ministerial intervention, non-revocation may therefore carry the consequence of ongoing exclusion from return.
5. The Minister accepted those consequences follow from non-revocation, but submitted they are consequences contemplated by the statutory scheme and should attract neutral, or at least limited, weight in the applicant's favour. I do not accept that the characterisation of these consequences as 'intended' outcomes is, of itself, a sufficient basis to discount them. Paragraph 9.1 requires the Tribunal to consider legal consequences as part of the evaluative task. The focus is on their practical reality for the person concerned, not merely their description as features of the statutory framework. As explained in Doan v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs,[99] it is an error to treat serious consequences as neutral, or to effectively dismiss them, merely because they are described as 'intended' consequences of the statutory scheme, without tethering the evaluative assessment to the person's circumstances.
6. Considered in practical terms, the legal consequences are serious. Non-revocation would expose the applicant to detention pending removal, removal from Australia, and would substantially constrain any realistic pathway to lawful return. In this case, those consequences take on particular significance in light of the applicant's long residence in Australia from early childhood and his family circumstances. The evidence depicts him as a central figure in the family unit. The likely practical effect of removal would be substantial disruption to that family unit, including separation from day-to-day parenting and an increased financial and practical burden on his wife, or relocation of the family unit if they were to accompany him. At the hearing, FL gave evidence that she would move to Tonga with the applicant and the children if he were removed. However, even if FL and the minor children where to relocate, the evidence does not establish that the applicant's adult children would do so. In practical terms, non-revocation would therefore still entail separation from the applicant's adult children, including adult daughters who are currently residing with him and rely on his emotional and financial support. These are not abstract consequences. They are foreseeable human consequences of detention, removal, separation and likely long-term exclusion in the applicant's particular circumstances.
7. The applicant is not the subject of a protection finding. He does not appear to have advanced protection-based claims and neither the written evidence nor the evidence at the hearing suggests that his circumstances engage Australia's protection obligations.
8. In summary, non-revocation would likely result in detention and removal, would significantly limit future visa options, and may have the practical effect of permanent exclusion from Australia. In the applicant's circumstances, those consequences are significant when assessed in practical, human terms. Therefore, overall, I give this consideration moderate weight in favour of revocation.

1. Paragraph 9.2 of the Direction provides that taking into account the matters identified in paragraphs 9.2(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Direction, the Tribunal must consider the extent of any impediments that the applicant may face if removed from Australia to their home country in establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country. The matters identified under paragraph 9.2(1)(a) to (c) of the Direction are:

(1) The applicant's age and health;

(2) Whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers; and

(3) Any social, medical and/or economic support available to the applicant in their country.

1. The Minister submitted in the RSFIC and in closing submissions that the applicant is a mid-life adult with transferable employment skills, and that any difficulties in Tonga would largely be those faced by other citizens. The Minister also contended that language and cultural barriers are overstated by the applicant because he spent time in Tonga as an adolescent, has 'sufficient proficiency' in the Tongan language and that English is one of the official languages in Tonga and that it is taught in schools. It was submitted that while the applicant may face some practical, emotional and financial hardship upon removal, his age and employment experience will ensure that these hardships would only be temporary, and that this consideration should attract only minor weight.[100]
2. By contrast, the applicant's evidence and submissions were that he has been away from Tonga for decades, has no meaningful support network there, and would face substantial difficulty reintegrating. He also raised health concerns, including heart-related issues and medication, and expressed concern about continuation of medical care.[101] He further relied on the hardship that removal would cause to his family unit, particularly separation from his children. In his ASFIC, the applicant also submitted that deportees returning to Tonga from Australia face extreme hardship and stigma, are frowned upon because of the crimes leading to deportation, and may be treated as outcasts, with some becoming beggars when they lack family support.[102] He further raised concerns about the state of medical care in Tonga, the risk of natural disasters, and hospitals being unequipped to manage his particular medical condition. He stated that he fears declining health if returned.
3. I accept that the applicant is in mid-life and has substantial work history and practical skills. Those matters are relevant and, to some extent, mitigate the risk of complete destitution on return. However, the Direction requires the Tribunal to assess impediments in the particular circumstances of the applicant, and not simply by reference to generalised assumptions about employability.
4. In relation to health, the evidence indicates that the applicant was diagnosed with NSTEMI (Non-ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction), a serious cardiac event, and that he received treatment at Mannus Correctional Centre for chest pain.[103] He remains on ongoing medication. I have considered his expressed concerns that medical facilities in Tonga may be poorly equipped to manage his condition and that his health may decline if returned. There is no country-specific medical evidence before me about the availability, accessibility, or continuity of the applicant's required cardiac treatment in Tonga, and I am therefore not able to make a detailed comparison of health systems or findings about particular treatment pathways. Nevertheless, I accept that, for this applicant, the need to manage a chronic cardiac condition and maintain medication creates a real practical obstacle to resettlement, particularly in the absence of established supports.
5. In relation to language and cultural familiarity, the applicant lived in Tonga for about a year in 1994 to 1995 and attended school there. That history suggests some degree of prior familiarity. However, the evidence, which I accept, also indicates he has lived in Australia since early childhood, describes Australia as the only home he knows, and asserts limited connection with Tongan language and culture. Even allowing for some residual familiarity, I am satisfied that removal to Tonga would likely involve significant cultural dislocation and practical adjustment difficulties for a person who has lived almost all of his life in Australia.
6. In relation to support networks, the applicant has asserted he has no family or meaningful supports in Tonga and only distant relatives whom he has never met and from whom he could not obtain assistance. The evidence does not identify any reliable accommodation, family or community supports on return. I accept the Minister's point that the applicant has transferable skills and may be capable of obtaining employment overtime. There is also no persuasive independent evidence before me to substantiate the applicant's claims about stigma towards deportees and the risk of being treated as an outcast without family support.
7. However, I accept that the absence of an established support network remains a significant impediment, particularly in the initial resettlement period and given the applicant's health concerns. In that context, I also take into account the likely effect of separation from his established family supports in Australia. The evidence before me includes inconsistent accounts about whether the applicant's partner and children would relocate with him. In her oral evidence, FL stated she would move to Tonga with the applicant and the children. Other evidence indicates she would not relocate. I cannot resolve this inconsistency on the available evidence. However, whichever course is taken, the applicant is likely to face additional hardship relevant to reintegration. If FL does not relocate, the applicant would lose the day-to-day practical and emotional support of his immediate family upon return. If she does relocate, the evidence still does not indicate that the applicant's adult children would do so, with the result that he would remain separated from them. In either scenario, the loss of established family support, and the likelihood of strained family relationships in the immediate period after return, would make initial resettlement more difficult and compounds the practical disadvantage arising from the absence of identified supports in Tonga.
8. Considering these matters cumulatively, I find that the applicant would face substantial impediments if removed to Tonga. Those impediments arise from the combination of his long absence from Tonga since adolescence, absence of any identified accommodation or stable family or community supports on return, health related concerns requiring ongoing management, and the additional hardship likely to arise from reduced access to established family support in Australia, whether through separation from his wife and children, or relocation of some family members but not others. I therefore give this consideration significant weight in favour of revocation.

1. Paragraph 9.3 of the Direction requires consideration of any impact on Australian business interests if an applicant is not allowed to enter or remain in Australia, noting that an employment link would generally only carry weight where the decision would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project or an important service in Australia.
2. I have considered whether the decision would have any impact on Australian business interests. The Minister submitted in closing submissions that there is no evidence this consideration is engaged and that it should be given neutral weight. The applicant did not contend otherwise in his written statements, but he noted in his oral evidence that he has substantial work experience in the rail industry, including in roles that ensured the safety of railroad tracks. However, the evidence does not indicate that the applicant is currently employed in the rail industry, or that any employer or industry relies on his ongoing availability in a way that would affect delivery of a major project or service. There is no evidence before me to indicate any specific project, contract, or operational role would be disrupted if the cancellation were not revoked. In these circumstances, I give this consideration neutral weight.

1. Weighing the considerations arising under the Direction involves a complex and finely balanced evaluative exercise. As noted by the Full Court of the Federal Court in CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs:[104]

The balancing process is directed to determining whether there is 'another reason' why the visa cancellation should be revoked. It requires an identification of the matters that may constitute 'another reason' and bringing to bear the considerations that the Direction requires the Tribunal to take into account where relevant in determining whether or not the Tribunal is satisfied that there is another reason (or reasons) to revoke the visa cancellation. Some of the considerations set out in the Direction, where relevant, may weigh in favour of revocation, and so may constitute 'another reason' capable of supporting the state of satisfaction required in order for revocation under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) to occur. But whether they do qualify as a reason of that kind will need to be assessed in the context of different considerations set out in the Direction which may weigh against revocation, where relevant. That is why it is appropriate to describe it as a process of weighing and balancing. But to go beyond that to treat the Direction as mandating some sort of calculation of the net weight to be given to the considerations on each side is to lose sight of the ultimately evaluative nature of the statutory task.[105]

2. I have found that the applicant does not pass the character test under s 501 of the Act. In considering whether I am satisfied that there is 'another reason' to revoke the cancellation decision, I have had regard to the specific circumstances relating to the applicant. I have also had regard to the considerations referred to in the Direction.
3. The Direction provides that the protection of the Australian community is the Government's highest priority. Paragraph 7(2) expressly states that primary consideration 1, protection of the Australian community, is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations and primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations. However, the evaluative exercise of weighing the relevant considerations under the Direction is not subject to a ritualistic formula.[106] The Direction does not prescribe a mechanical hierarchy and it requires that appropriate weight ultimately be given to both primary and other considerations. Some of the same underlying factual circumstances, including the consequences for the applicant's family unit, are relevant to more than one consideration. In the overall weighing exercise, I have taken those matters into account for the distinct purpose each consideration serves and have not treated their recurrence under different headings as compounding the weight to be given to them.
4. I have given primary consideration 1 (protection of the Australian community) significant weight against revocation, having considered the seriousness of the applicant's offending and the risk of harm should similar conduct recur. I have also given primary consideration 2 (family violence committed by the non-citizen) significant weight against revocation, having regard to the seriousness, repetition and the involvement of children. I have further given primary consideration 5 (expectations of the Australian community) significant weight against revocation, noting the normative expectation in the Direction that non-citizens who engage in serious conduct, or who present an unacceptable risk of doing so, should not be permitted to remain in Australia.
5. On the other hand, I have given primary consideration 3 (the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia) significant weight in favour of revocation, having regard to the applicant's lengthy residence in Australia from early childhood, the depth of his family connections, including with both minor and adult children, and his broader family and community supports. I have also given primary consideration 4 (best interests of minor children in Australia) significant weight in favour of revocation as I am satisfied that non-revocation would not be in the best interests of the applicant's minor children due to the likely impact on their wellbeing through either separation from a present parent, who plays an active role in the household, or a disruptive relocation.
6. Among the other considerations, I have given moderate weight in favour of revocation to the legal consequences of non-revocation, including the practical realities in human terms for this applicant of likely immigration detention pending removal, the likelihood of removal as soon as reasonably practicable, and the restrictive consequences for future visa options and return. I have given significant weight in favour of revocation to the extent of impediments the applicant would face if removed to Tonga, including the practical obstacles to establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards in the context of what is generally available there, taking into account his age and health, long absence from Tonga, limited demonstrated supports, and the severe disruption to family life inherent in either separation or relocation. I have given neutral weight to the impact on Australian business interests.
7. Having considered all of the matters required by the Direction and undertaking the overall evaluative assessment, I am satisfied that the considerations in favour of revocation, taken cumulatively, outweigh the considerations against revocation in this particular case. Although primary considerations 1, 2 and 5 weigh significantly against revocation, I am satisfied that the applicant's substantial ties to Australia, the best interests of his minor children, the legal consequences of non-revocation and the impediments that the applicant may face if removed, taken together, warrant the exercise of the discretion to revoke the mandatory cancellation. Accordingly, I am satisfied there is another reason to revoke the cancellation.

1. The decision of the delegate of the Respondent not to revoke the cancellation of the applicant's Class BB Subclass 155 Five Year Resident Return visa is set aside and substituted with a decision that the cancellation of the applicant's visa is revoked under s501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

Campbelltown District Court for sentence severity appeal

Three counts Contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic).

1/06/2021 concluding 31/05/2022, non-parole period: 5 months

Community correction order: 18 months commencing 18/06/2019 concluding 17/12/2020 Supervision: 18 months commencing 18/06/2019, concluding 17/12/2020, supervised by Community Corrections Service.

Intensive correction order: 12 months commencing 18/06/2019, concluding 17/06/2020 Supervision: 12 months commencing 18/06/2019, concluding 17/06/2020, supervised by Community Corrections Service Community service work: 100 hours

Stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc harm (domestic)- T2

Fine: $1,500 Imprisonment: 2 years suspended on enter bond s12: 2 years Costs - court: $76 Disqualification: 2 years commencing 13/09/2009, concluding 12/09/2011

Fine: $500 Costs -court: $76 Disqualification: 12 months commencing 13/09/2009, concluding 12/09/2010

Two counts Drive while disqualified from holding a licence (Call up)

Imprisonment: 2 years suspended on enter bond s12: 2 years Fine: $1,500 Disqualification: 2 years

Convicted s25(2) warrant to issue

Two counts Drive while disqualified from holding a licence

Community service order: 100 hours cumulative Cost court: $63 Automatic/statutory period

Two counts Drive while disqualified from holding a licence

Use unregistered vehicle on road area (not a trailer)

Convicted s25(2) warrant to issue

Convicted s25(2) warrant to issue.

Fine: $1,200 Costs court: $58 Bond s9: 3 years Disqualification: 2 years

Unlicensed for Class, Class C/R/LR/MR-2nd + offence

[42] Direction 110, paragraph 8.1.1 (1)(a)(ii)-(iii).

[82] HB, 150-152, 179, 188, 190, 196, see also Exhibit A2.

[91] [2019] FCAFC 185.

[93] [2024] FCA 876.

[96] [2024] HCA 2.

[98] Ismail v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 2, [52].

[99] [2025] FCA 1411

[104] [2023] FCAFC 138.

[106] Howells v MIMIA [2004] FCAFC 327; (2004) 139 FCR 580, [127].