1. The hearing took place in Perth on 13 and 17 October 2025. Both parties were represented.
2. The following documents were marked as exhibits:

(a) Exhibit A1 - unsigned Statutory Declaration of the Applicant filed 8 October 2025); > > (b) Exhibit A2 - unsigned Statement of Applicant's Son 3, dated 8 October 2025; > > (c) Exhibit A3 - Statement of Ms J filed 8 October 2025; > > (d) Exhibit A4 - unsigned Statement of Applicant's Daughter 1, dated 8 October 2025; > > (e) Exhibit R1 - G Documents, labelled G1 - G6, filed 26 August 2025; > > (f) Exhibit R2 - documents in the Respondent's Tender Bundle filed 26 September 2025 identified as being a document a party relied on.[12]

3. The Applicant, two of her children and two family friends gave oral evidence. The two children were not cross-examined, the adult witnesses were all cross-examined.
4. I was also assisted by:

(a) the Applicant's Statement of Facts Issues and Contentions, filed 12 September 2025 (Applicant's SFIC); and > > (b) the Minister's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, dated 26 September 2025 (Respondent's SFIC).

Migration Act

1. Under sections 501(3) and (3A) of the Act, the Minister must cancel a person's visa if he or she is satisfied that the person does not pass the 'character test', and the visa holder is serving a full-time sentence of imprisonment in a custodial institution of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.
2. Section 501(6)(a) of the Act provides that a person does not pass the character test if they have a substantial criminal record, which in turn is set out on section 501(7)(c) to mean they have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.
3. Once a person's visa is cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Act, the Minister must give them written notice inviting them to make representations about revocation of the original decision. If representations are made, the Minister may revoke the decision to cancel the visa if satisfied that: [13]

(a) the person passes the character test; or > > (b) there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked.

4. That is, to make a decision under section 501CA(4) a decision-maker must first decide whether the person passes the character test under section 501CA(4)(b)(i) and, only if satisfied that the person does not pass that test, decide whether, under section 501CA(4)(b)(ii), there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked.[14]
5. Section 499(2A) of the Act mandates that the Tribunal must comply with written directions given by the Minister regarding its functions or the exercise of those powers given to it under section 499(1) of the Act.

1. On 7 June 2024, the Minister issued Direction no. 110 under s 499 of the Act (Direction 110). The direction applies specifically to decisions by the Tribunal on an application for revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA.
2. Paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110 sets out mandatory principles which 'provide the framework within which decision-makers should approach their task of deciding whether to ... revoke a mandatory cancellation under section 501CA'.
3. These principles include the following:
   1. Australia has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia. Being able to come to or remain in Australia is a privilege Australia confers on non­ citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law-abiding, will respect important institutions, such as Australia's law enforcement framework, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
   2. The safety of the Australian Community is the highest priority of the Australian Government.
   3. Non-citizens who engage or have engaged in criminal or other serious conduct should expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the privilege of staying in, Australia.
   4. The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they engaged in conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, that raises serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measureable [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.
4. Paragraph 8 of Direction 110 sets out the primary considerations which must be taken into account in making a decision under s 501CA(4). These are:

(a) protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;

(b) family violence engaged by the Applicant (if any);

(c) the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia;

(d) the best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision; and

(e) the expectations of the Australian community.

1. Paragraph 9 of Direction 110 sets out the other considerations which the Tribunal must take into account, insofar as they are relevant to an application. These are:

(b) extent of impediments if removed; and

(c) impact on Australian business interests.

(a) information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight when applying the considerations;

(b) the 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; and

(c) one or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.

1. The Applicant, by her counsel, concedes that she does not pass the character test in sections 501(6)(a) and 501(7)(c) of the Act.[15] Therefore, the sole live issue for consideration is whether there is another reason why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked.[16]

1. I set out in more detail below the history of the Applicant's life since her arrival in Australia. In brief summary, the Applicant is a long-term drug user, having started using heroin at the age of 12, having been the victim of a sexual predator. She became a heroin addict and as a result only completed school to year 9, stopped her engagement with surf life saving, and has spent her adult life attempting to fund her drug habit by engaging in some relatively low level criminal activity, employment in low paying jobs including as a chef's apprentice, a cleaner and in customer service, and as a sex worker. Most recently, she engaged in selling drugs to fund her own drug needs, which resulted in her being charged in 2022 for trafficking offences. On 13 September 2024, following a plea of guilty, the Applicant was sentenced to a total term of 3 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 4 months for those trafficking offences.[17]
2. The Applicant's full criminal history is set out in Annexure A.

1. The Applicant concedes that she fails the character test in section 501(6) of the Act because her convictions and the sentence imposed for the most recent offences means she falls within the meaning of section 501(7), having been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more. That concession is properly made as her failure to pass the character test arises as a matter of law. [18] I find that she has failed the character test.

IS THERE ANOTHER REASON WHY THE CANCELLATION DECISION SHOULD BE REVOKED?

1. Given the power to revoke the Cancellation Decision is only enlivened if there is 'another reason', within the meaning of section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act, and the concession as to the character test, all the evidence and submissions at the hearing were directed at this question.

1. The parties' written submissions identified the following primary considerations as being relevant to my decision:

(a) protection of the Australian community; > > (b) strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia; > > (c) best interest of minor children; and > > (d) expectations of the Australian community. > > 1. The Applicant also identified the legal consequences of the decision and the extent of impediments if removed as being relevant.

1. Direction 110 at 8.1(1) requires me to keep in mind that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government, and to that end the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. In this respect, the Tribunal is directed to have particular regard to the principle that entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, will respect important institutions, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.[19]

1. The Applicant's criminal history, including that which gave rise to the Cancellation Decision, is set out in Annexure A to these reasons. The offending is extensive and speaks to the dreadful impact of drug addiction on the Applicant's life.

1. I must consider the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's criminal offending and other conduct.[20] I am directed that certain types of criminal or other conduct is viewed very seriously by the Government and the Australian community[21] and that certain criminal or other conduct is considered serious[22]. The scope of what I may consider as either very serious or serious, is not limited to those matters specifically included in Direction 110.[23]
2. The Applicant concedes that this consideration will weigh against revocation, and that her conduct will be viewed as serious under Direction 110.[24] The offending is plainly serious.[25]
3. The most recent offending, that which led to the Cancellation Decision, is on its face a very serious offence. However, as with many offences, the actual circumstances of the offences and the sentencing tell a more complete story. In this case, the Applicant sold very small quantities of methylamphetamine and some cannabis,[26] to a total of 15 people in a five month period. The purpose of the sales was to pay for her own drug habit and thereby not use the money she had for her children's welfare to fund her habit. In September 2024 at sentencing in the Supreme Court of Queensland, the maximum penalty available was 25 years' imprisonment. The Sentencing Judge said:[27]

The drugs are a scourge on society. They do untold damage and of course they have done damage to you, as you are no doubt aware and as your history shows. The application of sentencing principles usually results in a sentence which involves actual custody. That is because a trafficking attracts questions of deterrence, considerations of deterrence and also of public denunciation.

4. The Applicant received a sentence of 3 years, with a non-parole period of 4 months. Consequently, the Minister's submissions which emphasised the total sentence and the conviction, stripped of its factual background, missed the significant point which was that whilst the type of crime was one for which the usual sentence was a term of imprisonment by reason of questions of deterrence and public denunciation, the Applicant's criminality was very much at the lower end of the scale.
5. The Minister also relied on the Applicant's 2009 convictions, on pleas of guilty, in the District Court in Queensland for one count each of fraud, grievous bodily harm, and robbery with violence. This, it was submitted, demonstrated a history of violence.
6. The offences resulted in a total sentence of 3 years and the Applicant was granted a fixed parole date of 6 months after the date of sentencing. The offences were committed following what the Sentencing Judge accepted was provocation by the complainant, a man who urinated on the Applicant and yelled at her 'F*****g s***, you deserve what you got, you mole'. The Applicant's behaviour[28] was disproportionate to the complainant's acts, particularly given the time which elapsed between the complainant's conduct and some of the Applicant's conduct which gave rise to the charges.
7. It is notable that the Applicant has not committed any offence involving any violence since the 2009 convictions for offences which took place in mid August 2008, more than 17 years ago. I do not accept the Applicant is a violent offender.
8. The remainder of the Applicant's offending is the exemplar of crime occasioned by the scourge of drug addiction, extending over 20 years with more than 20 separate convictions, but resulting in only two short periods of imprisonment comprising less than 12 months in total.[29]
9. The Minister relied on the fact that the Applicant was warned that her visa might be cancelled, in 2010.[30] There is in evidence a copy of the warning letter addressed to the Applicant whilst she was incarcerated in Brisbane Women's Correctional Centre, dated 7 January 2010,[31] and the Applicant's signed acknowledgment of receipt, dated 11 January 2010.[32]
10. The Applicant's third child, Son 3, was born on 7 February 2010, about 5 days prior to her release from custody at the conclusion of her first term of imprisonment. At the time of receiving the warning the Applicant was therefore about 3 weeks from giving birth. She gave evidence that she was confused by the warning as she thought the Government had made a mistake; she thought she was Australian, and she was unaware that she had a visa. She explained that she was called to attend a special area of the prison and was anxious that, despite having been advised previously that she could have her about to be born baby whilst in prison, she was going to be told that she could not have the baby there. She described her feelings of confusion as to her visa status, and relief at hearing the meeting was not about her unborn baby, so when she was handed the warning letter and asked to sign, she did so, believing it was all a mistake. I accept her evidence as entirely plausible and accurate.
11. Whilst I accept the Applicant did receive a warning, given the circumstances I place very limited weight on it.
12. Having considered, the submissions, and all the evidence including the assessments of the offending by the Courts in sentencing the Applicant, I have concluded the most recent offending which resulted in the convictions that gave rise to the Cancellation Decision was serious. I do not however regard the earlier offending as serious. Overall, the Applicant's offending history is not serious, but it does weigh against revocation of the Cancellation Decision.

Risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct

1. I must also consider the risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences.[33] This requires an assessment of the nature of the harm should the Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct[34], and an assessment of the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in that type of conduct.[35] There is no statutory constraint on the way I am to assess that risk, other than the requirement for me to adopt a rational and probative approach to the assessment[36].

1. I must consider the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the Applicant reoffend.[37]
2. The offending history predominantly comprises a range of drug and drug-related offences including property offences, possession offences, and a number of breaches of bail or parole for failing to attend at court or her parole supervisor. There is the one violence offence I discuss above at paragraphs 35 and 36, and an even more ancient conviction for common assault for which the facts are not before me.
3. The harm done by all of the Applicant's offending history is mainly the impact on the already busy workloads of the police, the courts, and the justice system as a whole. This is real, albeit relatively low level harm, to the Australian community as a whole.
4. There is real physical and financial harm to the wider community, which would arise if the worst of the Applicant's offences, being the trafficking offences and violence offence were to be repeated. I however am satisfied that, provided the Applicant remains committed to her drug free life, the potential for harm, whilst real, is only modest.
5. I consider the nature of the harm which may be caused if the Applicant reoffended in a similar manner to her past history, to be modest.

(ii) Likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or serious conduct

1. To determine the risk to the Australian community if the Applicant committed further offences or engaged in other serious conduct, I must also consider the likelihood of reoffending if she is permitted to remain in the Australian community.[38] The task of assessing this aspect is essentially an evaluative one to be undertaken at the time of the decision, but looking forward.[39]
2. I do not have any recent detailed risk assessment available to me. The most recent assessment of any type is a risk assessment undertaken by Queensland Corrective Services on 19 September 2024, a week after the Applicant went to prison, which provides:[41]

Has the offender been convicted of a Breach of Justice Order (current offence or previous offence)?

Has the offender been convicted of an assault or related offences (current offence or previous offence)?

Number of convictions in the past ten years (orders and prison sentences):

Total: 16

(Range of Scores 1 to 22: 22 being the highest risk of offending)

1. Queensland Corrective Services did an earlier risk assessment on 22 June 2021.[42]

Has the offender been convicted of a Breach of Justice Order (current offence or previous offence)?

Number of convictions in the past ten years (orders and prison sentences):

Total: 8

(Range of Scores 1 to 22: 22 being the highest risk of offending)

1. Neither of these assessments contain any narrative, other than that set out in the quoted paragraphs above. There is no indication of who undertook the review, or what their qualifications were. I do not find either of these assessments as being particularly insightful or of assistance.
2. Of more assistance in assessing risk is the remarks of the Sentencing Judge in the Supreme Court of Queensland, who I note the Minister's counsel conceded was relevantly experienced in assessing risk of future offending. Justice Davis said:[43]

It is suggested that your attempts at rehabilitation are late and should be looked at cynically. I reject that submission. It is often the case that persons who are drug addicted take time to get into a position whereby they can rehabilitate. There is one urine sample which is relevantly clear. You also made contact with Lives Lived 35 Well and engaged with them. It seems that you are supported in the community, and I have various references. Of some significance is a report by Peter J Stoker, a psychologist. It is submitted by the Crown that I should look at this cynically, as you are apparently, so the submission goes, a unreliable historian. I reject that submission and I take the report on its face. > > . . . > > It appears that you were introduced to drugs at a early age. It is said by the Crown that, from that point in time on, you are the author of your own demise. That is a cynical submission which completely misunderstands the insidious nature of drug addiction. It is a submission which I reject. As a result of some sexual abuse, you then became hooked on heroin, and it is obvious from your criminal history that you have been dealing with addiction at various levels at various times throughout your life.

3. Following her being charged, and before she was sentenced, the Applicant undertook a range of activities to attempt to rehabilitate. The most significant of these was engaging with Narcotics Anonymous (NA).
4. Her efforts to rehabilitate were apparent to Ms J and Ms B, who gave evidence of a significant change in her behaviour and attitude over the period between being charged and sentenced for trafficking.
5. Ms B is the 20-year-old partner of the Applicant's Son 2. Her relationship with Son 2 came about after she came to know the Applicant in 2019. Ms B explained what a loving and supportive person the Applicant had been when Ms B was dealing with her own father's death in 2019, and some conflict with her own mother. Notably Ms B's life experience is that her own father had been in trouble with the criminal justice system and had reformed by the time of his death. She speaks to the Applicant by telephone every day.
6. Ms J is a family friend who has known the Applicant and her family for over 8 years. She has remained in touch with the Applicant and the children since Applicant's imprisonment. Ms J has worked for Queensland Health for over 30 years in an administrative role where she comes into contact with people with addition and mental health issues as part of her daily work. She is not an expert in these areas, but has considerable lived experience, through her work of people impacted by addiction. She believes the Applicant has made significant steps towards rehabilitation and is unlikely to reoffend.
7. During her time in prison, the Applicant made significant efforts to continue to rehabilitate. These efforts comprise:

(a) continuing with her NA attendance and taking on a leadership role, so as to keep the group going to enable other prisoners to attend and take steps in their own rehabilitation; > > (b) undertaking money management and financial counselling education. Her efforts were noted as 'proactive and engaged', 'showing a willingness to learn' and 'a high level of commitment to improving their financial literacy'; her participation and engagement was said to be 'integral to the success of the program';[44] > > (c) attending a mindfulness program designed to enhance emotional intelligence;[45] > > (d) undertaking a course called 'Bringing Up Great Kids' which, amongst other things, aims to assist participants understand the impact of her offending on her family;[46] and > > (e) undertaking a 5-week domestic and family violence psychoeducational support program.[47]

8. These courses, along with the NA attendance and leadership appear to address not only her addiction issues, but the life triggers for her past relapses.
9. The Applicant told me in her evidence that the trafficking charge was a huge wake-up to her. She was shocked to find that what she had engaged in, selling small quantities of drugs to associates, was drug trafficking. She realised immediately that she would be incarcerated for the offence. This appears to have precipitated her reaching the point where she was finally ready to rehabilitate, as recognised by the Sentencing Judge.
10. Added to her shock at the charge is of course the fact that her visa was cancelled by the Minister. As a result, she has had the undoubtedly traumatic experience of having to make an application for revocation, which resulted in the Cancellation Decision, and making an application for review which I heard over two days. In my view it is very likely that the Applicant has a far clearer understanding of the danger she is in if she reoffends than she did when warned in January 2010.
11. In their evidence Son 2 and his partner Ms B both told me they would have no difficulty confronting the Applicant if they saw any repeat conduct. I was impressed with both of them as witnesses, they are young people who show considerable maturity and insight and who have taken on responsibilities for the younger children in the family in a manner that is entirely commendable. I have no doubt they would be able to confront the Applicant if she was to resume drug taking. They have a very clear understanding of what is at stake if the Applicant reoffends.
12. I am also confident that Ms J, with her many years of experience in day-to-day dealings with drug and alcohol addicted clients, will be able to recognise the signs of relapse, and confront her friend.
13. In my view, the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in further criminal or serious conduct is low to moderate.

Conclusion on the protection of the Australian community

1. Having regard to the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct, and the risk to the Australian community should she commit further offences or engage in other similar conduct, I have concluded that that this consideration weighs moderately against revocation.

1. This consideration is irrelevant in the circumstances of this Applicant.

The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia

1. In accordance with paragraph 8.3 of Direction 110, I must also consider the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia.
2. The Applicant arrived in Australia with her parents and her older sister, as a 4-month-old baby.[48] She has lived here for over 45 years. Her last visit to New Zealand was at the age of about 12, to visit her grandmother who has since died. Her mother, stepfather, sister, brother and six nieces and nephews, are all Australian citizens.
3. As a 9-year-old she moved with her family to South Australia. She was a very athletic child and involved in swimming and Nippers, a children's surf life saving organisation. At the age of 12, prior to reaching puberty, she became the victim of a sexual predator and her previously idyllic childhood was shattered. She turned to heroin to cope with the shame and trauma of those events, and has been a drug addict since that time. The events of her childhood have not been disclosed to her family and they do not know why she "went off the rails". Despite this lack of knowledge, they remain part of her life, and are supportive of her and her efforts to defeat her drug addiction.
4. The Applicant has a long-term relationship with Mr M, with whom she shares 2 sons, aged 19 and 18. Mr M is an Australian citizen. Mr M is now 63 years of age. The Applicant describes their relationship as very violent in the early days, which caused their separation. However, she was intent that her sons had a relationship with their father and did not want to cut him out of their lives. She describes Mr M as being consistent in loving the children and being there for them. It has been over 5 years since he has been aggressive towards her.
5. Mr S is the biological father of the two youngest children. The Applicant describes Mr S as 'violent' and having served multiple prison sentences for domestic violence offences. As a result of this, he is subject to orders which prevent him from having unsupervised access to his children.
6. The Applicant's father, who is a New Zealand citizen, is aged 69. He is living alone and has diabetes which has resulted in him having both feet amputated. He and the Applicant's mother are divorced. He spent some time in prison when the Applicant was a child aged 9, about which the Applicant said 'bad things happened as a result of that'. I take this to mean that she came into the orbit of the predator who assaulted her, as a result of her father's imprisonment. The Applicant also said she had been abused by her father, which, given the context in which that evidence was given,[49] I understood to mean she was the victim of family violence as a child. Despite this history, prior to her incarceration the Applicant was assisting her father attend medical appointments and with other chores.
7. The Applicant's mother is also aged 69 and is now an Australian citizen. She is married to a man who has known the Applicant for over 30 years. Both she and her husband provided letters in support of the Applicant remaining in Australia.[50] They praise the Applicant's love for her children and speak of family Christmases and other events together.
8. The Applicant's brother is a senior teacher. He says:[51]

. . she is a loving aunty to my three children and a loving sister to myself. If I needed someone to help me out, [she] is one of the few people in my life that I am 100% sure if I called and told her I needed her, she would be there for me.

9. Other letters in support also attested to the Applicant's willingness to assist her friends and community, and her love of her children.[52]
10. I have also had regard to:

(a) a letter of support from the Salvation Army which speaks of her efforts to build strong connections for her children in a range of positive community organisations, including education, sporting, and after school activities; and > > (b) personal letters from friends, all of whom are substantial contributors to Australian society through their work and other activities, including as foster parents.[53]

11. As a result of her being charged for drug trafficking offences in 2021, the Applicant engaged with NA. She led an NA group whilst in prison in 2024 and is keen to continue that work in the wider community. It is of no surprise that many of the women the Applicant encountered in prison had drug addiction problems, and so her commitment to making NA more widely available in the prison and in the wider community is of clear societal benefit.
12. It is plain to me that the Applicant has very deep and enduring ties to Australia. It is a credit to her that she has developed and maintained these ties despite her drug addiction and the impact of that on her life and some of the poor choices she has made.
13. I conclude that the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia weighs strongly in favour of revocation of the Cancellation Decision.

Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision

1. I must also consider the best interests of the minor children in Australia affected by the decision.
2. The Applicant has five children ranging in age from 19 years to 4 years of age, all of whom are Australian citizens.[54] Of relevance to my decision is the best interests of the three youngest children, all of whom are minors. These children are:

(a) Son 3, aged 15; > > (b) Daughter 1, aged 9; and > > (c) Son 4, aged 4.

3. Son 2, who turned 18 a fortnight before the hearing, and Son 3 both gave evidence before me. Daughter 1 had written a letter which I had regard to.
4. The living arrangements for the minor children are precarious. Prior to being sentenced, and in the expectation that she would be imprisoned, the Applicant had made arrangements for temporary accommodation for the three minor children. Given her non-parole period was set at 4 months, the arrangements were not intended to be a longer term solution and the children have been making do as best they can in their mother's absence.
5. The arrangement made was that Mr M, the Applicant's life partner,[55] who is the biological father of the eldest two children[56] but not of the three minor children[57], had taken the children into his home. Mr M is aged 63 and lives in a 2 bedroom flat. One bedroom is occupied by the Applicant's 19-year-old son with Mr M, the other bedroom is shared by Mr M, Son 4 and Daughter 1. Son 3 sleeps in the lounge room, and also spends time at his girlfriend's home and occasionally uses the 19-yearold's bedroom if that young man is away from home.[58] Son 2, the 18-year-old, lives on the Sunshine Coast with his girlfriend, Ms B, and her grandmother. Son 3 and Daughter 1 go to stay with Son 2 and Ms B on weekends and school holidays.
6. At the time of the hearing the Applicant had been away from her children for over 12 months. The arrangements which had been put in place in September 2024 were still in place but were under considerable strain. This is hardly surprising.
7. Ms B, Son 2's partner, gave evidence that she sees Son 4 and Daughter 1 every weekend and at school holidays when they stay at her grandmother's house, where Ms B and Son 2 reside. Ms B and Son 2 have taken on considerable responsibility for the welfare of the two youngest children by taking care of them for these times.

1. Son 3 is aged 15 and in year 10 at school. He gave evidence by video and provided two written statements and an email in support of his mother's application.
2. I was so impressed with Son 3. He was a caring, articulate and plainly intelligent young man who has undoubtedly had significant struggles over the past year of his life. He has given up attendance at school as he has found it too difficult to concentrate on whilst he is concerned about his mother's visa situation, and has had mental health issues for which he has been unable to obtain adequate support. He is effectively couch surfing, a truly tragic situation for him to be in.
3. Son 3 gave evidence of his mother's constancy in his life prior to her incarceration. They speak multiple times a day whilst she is in detention, and once a day when she was in prison. Prior to her going to prison they lived together as a family unit, Mum was insistent on school attendance, the family ate meals together, and they went on outings together. His mother was plainly the central figure in their lives and whilst I have no doubt that the life was not affluent, it appeared to be a loving and supportive environment. Son 3 also gave evidence of the impact on his younger siblings of the continued living arrangements with Mr M, whom they all call Dad. This evidence was insightful and demonstrated great maturity.
4. I was particularly struck by several aspects of his evidence.

(a) When he spoke of his mother's history of drug taking and associated criminal activity, he was not looking through rose coloured glasses. It was plain that he was aware of and lived with the pain that this had brought to the whole family. > > (b) Secondly, he spoke with great love and pride of his mother's efforts to rehabilitate. > > (c) Thirdly, his demeanour and language were of a young man who was respectful, intelligent, and educated. At least the first and third of these characteristics are attributable to his mother's influence.

5. There was no evidence before me of the identity of Son 3's biological father and I infer that there has been no "father" figure other than Mr M, whom he calls Dad. Whilst he is an Australian citizen, he could theoretically move to New Zealand to be closer to his mother, his entire family and his entire life are in Australia. The prospect of him moving to New Zealand is of course entirely fanciful.
6. If his mother is deported, Son 3 will lose the direct contact with her which has been the constant in his life. This is all the more significant in circumstances where he needs to return to school and complete his education, something which has been too difficult for him to do this year. Ms J expressed concern about Son 3's current mental health, who she described as being unable to talk about the impact of his mother's absence.
7. In my view Son 3's best interests strongly favour his mother remaining in Australia.

1. The Applicant's only daughter was aged 9 at the time of the hearing, in grade 4 at school. I had two statements from her before me, one from January 2025 and the other drafted in October 2025. The first of these statements is handwritten when she was 8 years old having completed grade 3 at school. It is plainly a letter written by an intelligent and educated 8-year-old. She speaks of her love for her mother, how much she misses her and the impact on her "baby brother", then aged 3.
2. The second statement was prepared with the assistance of a lawyer, so the language is more sophisticated, but I am satisfied the tone and content are the child's, having had the benefit of her handwritten statement. In this second statement she describes her athletic achievements and her mother's pride in them, some of the "girls" activities she did with her mother, and describes the impact of her mother's absence.
3. Both Son 2 and Son 3 gave evidence as to the home life prior to the Applicant's incarceration. Daughter 1 appears to be a clear beneficiary of the Applicant's constancy as a parent and her insistence on attending school. They described a sense of discipline in the household which the Applicant enforced. Son 3 described his mother's approach to parenting as one of "little kids need to be raised", rather than the more hands off approach of Mr M. Son 2 said his mother was "the main parent".
4. Both older brothers also described a change in Daughter 1 in the year her mother has been absent. She is described as 'sad' and 'down'. Ms B gave evidence that Daughter 1 was missing her mother. Ms J's evidence was that losing her mother has really affected Daughter 1 as she now has no adult female companionship and she misses her mother a great deal.
5. The Applicant gave evidence of her discussions with her daughter over the years regarding predator behaviour, a matter of particular concern given the Applicant's own background and the trauma of her own childhood.
6. Daughter 1 is an Australian citizen. Her biological father is not a part of her life and is the subject of legal restraint as a result of his domestic violence history. Despite this, as I understand it, his consent would need to be obtained for Daughter 1 to leave the country. The Applicant expressed concern that he would actively seek to prevent Daughter 1 moving to New Zealand with her mother.
7. I have no doubt whatsoever that the best interests of Daughter 1 are strongly in favour of revocation of the Cancellation Decision.

1. Son 4 was only 3 years of age when the Applicant was imprisoned. He turned 4 in August of this year. Like Son 3 and Daughter 1, he lives with Mr M, whom he calls Dad, and shares a bedroom with Mr M and his older sister. He has the same biological father as Daughter 1 and like his sister has effectively no relationship with him. Despite this, his biological father would be in a position to seek to have Son 4 prevented from going to New Zealand with his mother, if she were removed.
2. Son 4's older brothers, Son 2 and Son 3, described the negative impact of the current living arrangements and the absence of their mother on their younger brother's behaviour over the past 12 months. They described a boy who has become increasingly angry with the world, yelling, hitting out, and lacking discipline and direction.
3. Ms B's evidence was that Son 4 displays separation anxiety as a result of being away from his mother, he is scared of life and he wakes up screaming at night when staying with her at her grandmother's home on the Sunshine Coast. Ms J gave evidence that in her observation Son 4 is very distressed that his mother is not around.
4. Son 4's biological father is Mr S and the comments I make at paragraph 99 above regarding Daughter 4's biological father, the same man, are equally applicable to Son 4's circumstances.
5. Like his older siblings, Son 4 needs his mother around. I have no doubt whatsoever that if she is removed from Australia, it will have a devastating impact on him. His best interests overwhelmingly favour revocation of the decision.

1. The Minister accepts that the best interests of the minor children are in favour of revocation of the Cancellation Decision. However, the Minister submits that this does not and should not outweigh other considerations which, in the Minister's submission, were against revocation. The submissions on this point were merely rote recitations of Direction 110, with no actual regard to the circumstances of this particular applicant. For example, when questioned during the hearing, the Minister's counsel told me:

(a) she had no instructions on what arrangements should be made for the care of the minor children if the Applicant is to be removed; and > > (b) the future arrangements for the care of the minor children were not a matter for the Minister to be concerned about. > > 1. It is surprising that very obvious questions regarding highly vulnerable Australian citizens, which arose directly as a consequence of the Cancellation Decision, were not considered in the Minister's submissions.

1. The Applicant has two nieces and one nephew under the age of 18 years, whose best interests also fall to be considered. The girls are her younger brother's daughters, and the boy is her older sister's son.
2. I have limited information regarding any of these children. The Applicant's parents' and her siblings' letters attest to the Applicant being a loving aunty. I accept that she does have a relationship with these children, albeit, not a parental one and one which has undoubtedly been marred by her drug and criminal history. Accepting as I do that having extended family is a positive in a child's life, I find the best interests of these children weighs slightly in favour of revocation.

1. I find that the best interests of the minor children weighs very strongly in favour of revocation.

1. I am required to consider the expectations of the Australian community as set out in paragraph 8.5 of Direction 110. The consideration of this question, as with the others, is done against the background of the principles set out in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110 and specifically in this case, those matters set out in paragraphs 5.2(2), 5.2(3) and 5.2(4).
2. The first sentence of paragraph 8.5(1) is a reflection of the rule of law as it applies to both citizens and non-citizens.[59] The remainder of paragraph 8.5(1) sets out the expectations of the Australian community as a norm. I accept that the effect of this is to deem what the expectations of the community are and thereby preclude me from undertaking any assessment of what, in any particular factual circumstances, the actual expectations of the Australian community might be.[60] That proposition itself is contained in paragraph 8.5(4) of Direction 110. The utility of this approach by Government in order to assist decision-makers is obvious.
3. Furthermore, paragraph 8.5(2) also provides guidance by saying:

Non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of a visa may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences is such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not... continue to hold a visa.

4. The Applicant accepted this consideration weighs against revocation.
5. I have dealt with the risk to the community if the Applicant were to reoffend earlier in my reasons. I came to the view that the Applicant does not pose a significant risk of harm to the Australian community given the circumstances of her offending, the support of her family and friends, and the work the applicant has done to rehabilitate herself through both courses and her engagement with NA. The risk of harm is not unacceptable.
6. I find that the expectations of the Australian community weigh moderately against revocation in this matter.

Legal consequences of decision under section 501 or 501CA

1. I am 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.[61] Non-refoulment considerations do not arise in this case.
2. This consideration also makes reference to the range of legal consequences of a decision not to revoke the Cancellation Decision. These legal consequences include:

(a) the Applicant's unlawful status;

(b) becoming subject to detention and/or removal, pursuant to sections 189, 196, 197C and 198 of the Act;

(c) the refusal of other visa applications and cancellation of other visas, pursuant to section 501F of the Act;

(d) a prohibition on applying for other visas, pursuant to section 501E of the Act; and

(e) periods of exclusion and special return criteria may apply, pursuant to section 503 of the Act and special return criteria 5001 of the Migration Regulations 1994.

1. Generally, if a visa is cancelled its former holder becomes an unlawful non-citizen immediately after cancellation.[62] Under section 189 of the Act, the Applicant must be detained and removed as soon as reasonably practicable under section 198.[63] Having served her 4-month non-parole period, the Applicant was in immigration detention at the time of the hearing.
2. I accept the removal and visa limitations which result from a decision not to revoke the cancellation of the visa are an intended consequence of the operation of section 501. However, in my view, the consequences of liability for removal on any individual should not be ignored, irrespective of them being intended by the Parliament.[64] It is worth noting that the Parliament has not evinced any preference as to the outcome of a review like this one, and a positive outcome of the review will of course avoid the adverse consequences of the legislative scheme.[65]
3. In this Applicant's situation, removal would effectively mean that she is exiled from her children and other family members, and they will, in effect, be exiled from her. Given the strength of her family ties, this will plainly be a huge loss for all of them. In that context I am particularly conscious of the consequences which may flow for all her children and in particular the three minor children in the event she is removed. In particular the minor children will no longer be able to live in her care. There are undoubtedly significant mental health consequences for the Applicant as their mother, if that were to happen.
4. I find this consideration weighs strongly in favour of revocation of the Cancellation Decision.

1. Paragraph 9.2 of Direction 110 provides that taking into account the matters identified in sub-paragraphs 9.2(1)(a), (b) and (c) of Direction 110, the Tribunal must consider the extent to which the Applicant would face an impediment or impediments 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 sub-paragraph 9.2(1) are:

(a) the Applicant's age and health; > > (b) whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers; and > > (c) any social, medical and/or economic support available to the Applicant in their country.

2. The Applicant is a middle aged woman who has no substantial physical issues, albeit she has been a drug user since the age of 12. She has made substantial and successful efforts to remain clean over the 3½ years since being charged with the drug trafficking offences. However, drug addiction is a difficult disease to manage, and it is at least possible, if not probable, that the stress of removal to New Zealand, and the attendant issues this will lead to, including the mental health consequences arising out of the forced estrangement from her children, will lead to her relapsing.
3. I accept that as a New Zealand citizen, she will have access to the health and social supports available in that country. I also accept that the short distance from Australia may mean that her children, and other family members, are able to visit her, although it is by no means certain that they have the financial means to travel, nor is there any certainty that her youngest children, Daughter 1 and Son 4, will be able to do so.
4. In cross-examination when the Applicant was asked about cultural barriers to living in New Zealand, she replied "I'm an Aussie, not a Kiwi". This is indicative of the fact that she has lived here for all but 4 months of her life. For this Applicant, removal to New Zealand would be removal to an entirely foreign country.
5. The Minister accepted that the difficulties which the Applicant would face weighs in favour of revocation of the Cancellation Decision.
6. I find that the extent of impediments if removed weighs strongly in favour of revocation.

1. This consideration does not arise in this case.

1. I have found the Applicant does not pass the character test under section 501 of the Act.
2. I have therefore considered if there is another reason why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked, giving regard to the considerations set out in Direction 110, and weighing the various considerations in accordance with paragraph 7 of the Direction, and in accordance with the authorities which bind my decision making.
3. In determining the weight to be applied to each individual consideration, I have considered all the primary and other relevant considerations and weighed them in light of the evidence and according to the guidance provided by Direction 110.
4. Of the primary considerations, I find:

(a) the protection of the Australian community and the expectations of the Australian community both weigh only slightly against revocation; > > (b) the Applicant's ties to Australia weighs strongly in favour of revocation; > > (c) the best interests of minor children weighs strongly in favour of revocation.

5. In relation to those other considerations I find:

(a) the legal consequences of the decision weighs moderately in favour of revocation of the Cancellation Decision; and > > (b) the extent of impediments if removed weighs moderately in favour of revoking the Cancellation Decision.

6. Paragraph 7(2) of Direction 110 states that primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations. It also provides that the protection of the Australian community is generally to be given greater weight than the other primary considerations, which is a principle that I find should apply in this case.
7. Having weighed the considerations in favour of the revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant's visa and the considerations against revocation, I conclude that the primary considerations of protection of the Australian community and the expectations of the Australian community do not outweigh those primary considerations which weigh in favour of revocation, being the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia and the best interests of minor children, and the other considerations of the legal consequences of non-revocation and the extent of impediments if the Applicant is removed. In particular, in this case, the best interests of the minor children is the single most significant factor in the Applicant's favour.
8. In summary, having regard to all of the primary considerations, and the relevant other considerations in Direction 110, I am satisfied that there is 'another reason' why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked.

1. The decision of the delegate of the Minister dated 4 August 2025 not to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant's Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa is set aside.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and thirty-eight (138) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President Clare Thompson SC

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

Possessing dangerous drugs; possession of utensils or pipes etc

Producing dangerous drugs; possession of property suspected of having been acquired for the purpose of committing an offence

Imprisonment: 2 years; 1 year respectively (concurrent, suspended)

Producing dangerous drugs; possessing dangerous drugs and possession of anything used in the commission of a crime

Imprisonment: 2 years 9 months; 2 years; 3 months respectively (concurrent, suspended)

Intensive drug rehabilitation orders made pursuant to s 19 Drug Rehabilitation (Court Diversion) Act 2000

Failure to take reasonable care and precautions in respect of syringe or needle; HR authority for controlled drugs

Fraud - dishonest application of property of another

Grievous bodily harm; robbery wound or use personal violence

Imprisonment: 3 years; 2 years respectively (concurrent)

Possessing dangerous drugs; possession of property suspected of having been used with the commission of a drug offence

Possessing dangerous drugs; fail to properly dispose of needle and syringe

Possess property suspected of having been acquired for the purpose of committing a drug offence

Possessing dangerous drugs; possess utensils or popes etc that had been used; possess property suspected of having been used in connection with the commission of a drug offence; possessing/acquiring restricted items

Conviction recorded, imprisonment: 1 month (suspended for 6 months)

Possess utensils or pipes etc for use; unlawful possession of weapons

Conviction recorded, imprisonment: 1 month (suspended)

Possess property suspected of having been used in connection with the commission of a drug offence; possess utensils or pipes etc for use

Conviction recorded, imprisonment: 1 month (suspended for 2 years)

Possession of anything used in the commission of a crime defined in Part 2

Documents relied on by the Parties and admitted as PART OF exhibit R2**

Dept of Justice, Justice Reform Office Certificate of Appreciation

Sentencing remarks of the Supreme Court of Queensland

Sentencing remarks of the District Court of Queensland

Transcript of proceedings of the Drug Court of Townsville, hearing

Notice of decision not to cancel visa, and acknowledgement

Transcript of proceedings of the Magistrates Court of Townsville, decision

Notice of intention to consider cancellation of Applicant's visa and signed acknowledgement

Queensland Corrective Services - Report of a reasonable suspicion of child abuse and/or neglect

Queensland Corrective Services security classification report

Queensland Corrective Services risk of re-offending assessment

Queensland Corrective Services risk of re-offending assessment

Queensland Corrective Services risk of re-offending assessment

Queensland Corrective Services risk of re-offending assessment

[1] Khalil and Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 151 at [41].

[3] Applicant's SFIC at [1], [4]; Exhibit R1, G2, 69.

[12] The full list of the documents is in Annexure B to this decision and was provided by the parties following the conclusion of the oral hearing. As I indicated to the parties, unless I was specifically asked to consider a document in the Respondent's Tender Bundle, it would not be included as part of Exhibit R2.

[14] HZCP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCAFC 202; (2019) 273 FCR 121, 136 [66].

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

[20] Paragraph 8.1(1) of Direction 110.

[21] Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a) of Direction 110.

[22] Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(b) of Direction 110.

[23] Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a)-(b) Direction 110.

[26] Described by the Sentencing Judge as "street-level quantities" which ranged from .1 to 3.5 grams.

[27] Emphasis added. Exhibit R1, G2, 45, ln 1 - 6.

[28] Initially chasing then pushing the complainant and upon return, kicking and hitting him, and stealing his credit cards: Exhibit R1, G2, 48.

[29] Annexure A to Respondent's SFIC: Table of Applicant's dates of imprisonment.

[30] Paragraph 8.1.1(h) of direction 110.

[34] Paragraph 8.1.2(2)(a) of Direction 110.

[35] Paragraph 8.1.2(2)(b) of Direction 110.

[36] BSJ16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1181, [68] per Moshinsky J; Hambledon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 7, [41] per Kenny J.

[37] Paragraph 8.1.2(2)(a) of Direction 110.

[38] Paragraph 8.1.2(2)(b) of Direction 110.

[39] See the discussion in WKCG _and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship_40 by Justice Tamberlin, sitting as Deputy President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, albeit in respect to a different legislative context.

[43] Exhibit R1, G2, 44. Emphasis added.

[49] Being her giving evidence as to domestic violence arising in her relationships with Mr M and Mr S, the fathers of her children.

[52] Exhibit R1, G2, Attachments L to N.

[53] Exhibit R1, G2, Attachment M to N.

[54] Applicant's SFIC at [5 ]; Exhibit R1, G2, 104.

[56] aged 18 and 19 at the time of the hearing.

[57] Aged 4, 9, and 15 at the time of the hearing.

[59] FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185 [69] - [70].

[63] The Court in BHL19 v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2022] FCA 313 followed AJL20 v Commonwealth of Australia [2020] FCA 1305 to find the applicant's detention had at all times been lawful at [112]-[122].

[64] Singh v Minister for Immigration, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 1273.

[65] Stoneley v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 143 at [36].

[66] Respondent's SFIC, Annexure A (as amended by Respondent after the conclusion of the hearing).