(a) whether the Applicant passes the character test, as defined by s 501(6) of the Migration Act; and

(b) if the Applicant does not pass the character test, whether there is another reason why the cancellation decision should be revoked.[11]

1. For the reasons outlined below, having considered all the circumstances of the Applicant's case and having weighed the relevant matters raised in Direction no. 110, the Tribunal has decided that the decision under review should be set aside and the cancellation of the Applicant's visa should be revoked.

1. The Migration Act provides special powers for the Minister to refuse or cancel visas on character grounds. In some circumstances, such as where a visa is cancelled on character grounds, that decision can be revoked by a delegate of the Minister or by the Tribunal on review.
2. These powers generally involve consideration of whether a person passes the character test and, if they do not, consideration of whether there is another reason that the decision to cancel a visa should be revoked.
3. The character test is set out in s 501(6) of the Migration Act, which provides that a person does not pass the character test if the circumstances listed in that subsection 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. Under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act, the Minister must cancel the visa of certain persons if they are satisfied that the person does not pass the character test because the person has a substantial criminal record, having been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more. In addition, the person must be serving a 'sentence of imprisonment', on a full-time basis in a custodial institution, for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State, or a Territory.
2. If a visa is cancelled under s 501(3A), the Minister must give the person a written notice inviting them to make representations about revocation of the cancellation decision.[12] If the person makes representations in accordance with the invitation, the Minister may revoke the cancellation decision if they are satisfied that the person passes the character test or that there is another reason why the cancellation decision should be revoked.[13]

1. The hearing was conducted in person at the Tribunal's Perth Registry on 23 and 24 February 2026, with an additional day heard by video on 26 February 2026. The Applicant appeared in person[14] and was represented by Mr Nick Mutton of counsel, instructed by Mr Daniel Ajak and Mr Zade Gawi of Ajak & Associates. The Respondent was represented by Ms Aneesha Satyendra of Minter Ellison. The Respondent's representative appeared via video.
2. The hearing was assisted by an interpreter in the English and Dinka languages, with the exception of the third day of the hearing when the interpreter failed to attend. No witnesses gave evidence on that day, and parties agreed to proceed to closing submissions without the interpreter.
3. The Applicant gave evidence and was cross-examined at the hearing. The Tribunal also took evidence from the following witnesses:

(c) Gina Cidoni, psychologist; > > (d) JA, the Applicant's cousin; > > (e) JY, the Applicant's eldest daughter; > > (f) AY, the Applicant's second-eldest daughter; > > (g) PY, the Applicant's third-eldest daughter; and > > (h) ED, the Applicant's wife.

4. Ms MA, the Applicant's cousin, was also made available to provide evidence during the hearing. However, she was unable to be cross-examined due to the absence of the interpreter. Her letter of support was admitted into evidence without objection and it was agreed that her evidence would not be determinative of the outcome of the application in any event.
5. The Tribunal admitted the following documents into evidence:

(a) a joint hearing book, comprised of pages HB1 to HB425, including statements of facts, issues, and contentions, compiled by the Respondent and agreed upon by the parties (HB1); > > (b) a Supplementary Hearing Book, comprised of pages SHB1 - SHB22 (SHB1); > > (c) a revised support statement from Mr JA (SHB2); > > (d) a support statement from Ms MA (SHB3); and > > (e) a referral letter for the Applicant to the Association for Services to Torture and Trauma Survivors (ASeTTS) (SHB4).

6. The Hearing Book included the following submissions:

(f) The Applicant's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, dated 27 January 2026 (ASFIC); > > (g) The Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, dated 9 February 2026 (RSFIC); and > > (h) The Applicant's submissions in reply, dated 13 February 2026 (Reply).

7. SHB3 and SHB4 documents were not served on the Minister until 23 February and 22 February 2026 respectively. The additional hearing date was scheduled at the request of the Applicant, and with the agreement of the Respondent, to allow the Applicant to serve SHB3 and SHB4 in compliance with the requirements of ss 500 (6H) and s 500(6J) of the Migration Act. This would allow the Tribunal to have regard to that material.
8. As noted above, the absence of the interpreter on 26 February 2026 meant Ms MA was unable to give evidence and be cross-examined regarding her statement (SHB3).[15] As the decision on the matter was required to be delivered by 27 February 2026[16] and the Tribunal considered that, based on her statement, her evidence was unlikely to be determinative of the outcome of the application, the hearing proceeded without her giving oral evidence. The parties agreed to this approach.

1. The Applicant's record of criminal offending in Australia commenced in 2017. A detailed table of his offending history is at Annexure A.[17]
2. The Applicant has been convicted of a number of offences including:
   • Unlawfully assault and thereby did bodily harm with circumstances of aggravation and breach of protective bail conditions on 15 May 2025;
   • A spent conviction of common assault in circumstances of aggravation or racial aggravation on 20 March 2017; and
   • A number of driving-related offences, namely, no authority to drive - suspended on 6 January 2023, drove under the influence of Alcohol and no authority to drive (never held) on 9 June 2022, and no authority to drive (never held) and Fail to Provide Sample of Breath for Breath Analysis Test on 17 April 2020.
3. The Applicant's most serious offending occurred on 28 September 2022 and gave rise to a conviction on 15 May 2025 in the Magistrates Court of Western Australia at Joondalup for 'unlawfully assault and thereby did bodily harm with circumstances of aggravation' (the September 2022 offence).[18] As noted earlier, he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months' for this offence.
4. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant was on bail for most of the period between 28 September 2022 and 15 May 2025, save for 28-29 September 2022 and 11-15 March 2024, when the Applicant was held on remand. During that period on bail, he was subject to protective bail conditions with respect to his wife, the victim of the unlawful assault offence. Those conditions were breached on 10 March 2024, resulting in the charge of breaching protective bail conditions. Following his arrest for that offence he was again bailed and was subjected to further bail conditions.
5. The circumstances of the offences are discussed further below.

1. The character test is defined in s 501(6) of the Migration Act. Section 501(6)(a) of the Migration Act provides that a person does not pass the character test if they have a 'substantial criminal record', as defined by s 501(7). Relevant to the Applicant's case,

a person has a substantial criminal record if they have been 'sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more'.[19] Failure to pass the character test arises as a matter of law.[20] 2. As noted above, on 15 May 2025, the Applicant was convicted in the Magistrates Court of Western Australia at Joondalup of 'unlawfully assault and thereby did bodily harm with circumstances of aggravation' for which he received a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment.[21] 3. As the Applicant has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more, he does not pass the character test by operation of s 501(7)(c) of the Migration Act. 4. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the Applicant passes the character test.[22]

1. As I am not satisfied that the Applicant passes the character test, I must then determine whether there is 'another reason' why the cancellation decision should be revoked. The statutory power to revoke is only enlivened if there is 'another reason'.[23]
2. I am required to form a state of satisfaction as to whether there is 'another reason' why the cancellation decision should be revoked, reasonably, and on a correct understanding of the law.[24] In doing so, I must comply with written directions which are given by the Minister pursuant to s 499(1) of the Migration Act.[25]

1. On 7 June 2024, the Minister made 'Direction no. 110 - Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA' (Direction no. 110) under s 499 of the Migration Act. Direction no. 110 commenced operation on 21 June 2024.[26]
2. An objective of Direction no. 110 is to guide decision-makers in exercising powers under ss 501 or 501CA of the Migration Act.[27] In considering the exercise of the power under s 501CA(4), informed by the principles set out in paragraph 5.2 of Direction no. 110, a decision maker must take account of the primary and other considerations set out in Direction no. 110 where relevant to the decision.[28]
3. In making a decision under s 501CA(4), the primary considerations to be taken into account by the Tribunal are:[29]
   • the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;
   • family violence engaged by the Applicant (if any);
   • the strength, nature, and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia;
   • the best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision; and
   • the expectations of the Australian community.
4. The other considerations that the Tribunal must take into account, insofar as they are relevant to the application, include (but are not limited to):[30]
   • the legal consequences of the decision;
   • the extent of impediments if removed; and
   • the impact on Australian business interests.
5. The Tribunal must also take into account any other considerations or representations made by the Applicant in support of his request that the cancellation of his visa be revoked.
6. The principles set out in paragraph 5.2 of Direction no. 110 'provide the framework within which decision-makers should approach their task of deciding whether to ... revoke a mandatory cancellation under section 501CA'. Those principles highlight that the safety of the Australian community is the government's highest priority and that Australia has a right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia. They stress that entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege conferred on non-citizens on the basis they will be law-abiding, will respect Australia's law enforcement framework, and will not harm members of the community. The principles state that the community expects the government to cancel the visas of individuals whose conduct raises serious character concerns regardless of whether they pose a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
7. The Direction provides that, while the community has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by individuals holding a limited stay visa or who have only been contributing to the community for a short period of time, Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance for such conduct where the individual has lived in the community for most of their life, or from a very young age.
8. Noting that primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case must be taken into account, Direction no. 110 states that, in some circumstances, the nature of the conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify revoking a mandatory cancellation of a visa, including in circumstances where the information available at the time of consideration suggests that the individual does not pose a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
9. Further guidance as to how a decision-maker is to apply the considerations in

Direction no. 110 can be found in paragraph 7, which provides that: * Information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight when applying the considerations. * The primary consideration of 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. * One or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations. 10. The Applicant's central contention was that the balance of relevant considerations established another reason why the cancellation should be revoked. With respect to the matters arising for consideration under Direction no. 110, the Applicant contended, in summary:[31] * While the Applicant's offending was serious, he is remorseful and was suffering from then undiagnosed mental health issues. He is committed to having treatment in the community and, as such, should be regarded as presenting a low risk of reoffending. He spent a significant period in the community without reoffending against his wife and has been an exemplary prisoner. The Applicant's other offending, in particular his traffic offences, are not of such number or gravity that they materially affect the risk to the community and should be afforded limited weight. * The Applicant's offending constitutes family violence and, as such, is serious but the offending occurred in the context of mental health issues which are now being addressed, and this consideration should not carry additional weight to that afforded to the protection of the Australia community. * The Applicant has very strong ties to the Australian community through his wife, children, and extended family here, and through ties to the Australian South Sudanese community. His family will be significantly impacted by his removal. * The Applicant has four minor children with whom he is close. He has been an active parent and financial support for his family, and his children will suffer emotionally and financially if he is removed. It is the children's best interests that he remains in Australia, and their interest should be given considerable weight. * The Applicant was previously granted a humanitarian visa, having fled South Sudan as a refugee. The Applicant faces a real chance of serious harm on return to South Sudan, and his return would engage Australia's non-refoulment obligations. While it would be open to the Tribunal to defer consideration of the Applicant's claims for protection to be determined through a protection visa application process, given the nature of his claims and the impact any delay would have on the Applicant and his family, the Tribunal should not defer consideration of this issue and it should carry significant weight. * The Applicant faces significant impediments if removed, including a lack of family support in South Sudan and limited access to health and other supports noting his age and pre-existing condition with a leg injury. Further, psychological evidence indicates his return to South Sudan would exacerbate the Applicant's PTSD. This should carry significant weight. 11. The Minister submitted, in summary, that:[32] * The Applicant has engaged in family violence, which is very serious offending, including in the presence of his children. He has also engaged in other offending which should be considered serious. His driving offences are also serious and indicate a blatant disregard for the laws of Australia and the Australian community. * The Applicant should be considered a medium to high risk of reoffending noting historical issues with alcohol. His parole was refused, noting he has unmet treatment needs. Accepting he now has a diagnosis of PTSD, he has not undertaken rehabilitation in prison and the outcomes of any rehabilitation which might be undertaken in the community cannot be assumed. Even if the assessment of risk was low, even a low risk of reoffending is unacceptable given the gravity of the harm which would be caused were he to reoffend. * The Applicant has engaged in family violence offending and has not undertaken any rehabilitation specific to this unmet need. This weighs against revocation. * While the Applicant has ties to Australia, less weight should be placed on these ties noting he has been separated from his wife for a significant period, could maintain contact with his family by telephone, and has provided limited evidence of positive contributions to the Australian community beyond employment and South Sudanese community events. His ties should not outweigh those considerations weighing against revocation. * It is accepted the best interests of his children weigh in favour of revocation. However, noting that the children have the care of Ms ED and her older children to support her, and noting the history of exposure of the children to family violence, minimal weight should be given to this consideration. * It is open to the Applicant to make a protection visa application, and the Tribunal should defer consideration of non-refoulement obligations to a protection visa application process where they can be properly considered. This would include consideration of complex issues such as may relate to the Applicant's citizenship. The consideration should be given limited weight, noting legal consequences such as the removal and exclusion of the Applicant from Australia are the intended purposes of the statutory regime. * It was accepted that the Applicant faced some impediments if removed and, while this consideration weighs in favour of revocation, it does not outweigh factors weighing against revocation.

1. The Applicant's personal background was set out in submissions and addressed in his evidence. For the purposes of this application these aspects of his personal history were not in dispute and are accepted by the Tribunal.
2. The Applicant was born and grew up in Anagkue,[33] a village in Sudan in what is now Baidit Payam in Bor County, South Sudan. He was the oldest of four children. His mother died when he was 10 years old, and he left school to look after his three sisters.
3. At around 15 years of age, he was conscripted into the South Sudan Liberation Army (also known as the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA)) as a child soldier. He suffered a gunshot wound to his hand and leg and received medical treatment at a hospital in Kenya.
4. He left the SPLA after around 5 years due to his injury and spent about two years in the Kakuma Refugee Camp in Turkana District, Kenya, where he received some primary education. He returned to Sudan around 3 years later and settled at a displaced persons camp in Budi County. He met his wife in the displaced persons camp, and they married the following year. After they married, the couple moved to Kakuma Refugee Camp, where their first three daughters were born.
5. In around 2008, the family travelled to Nairobi, Kenya, where they applied for humanitarian visas to Australia. His wife was pregnant at the time, and they were advised to wait for the birth before making the application. His eldest son, MA, was born in Kenya in 2008. The family was eventually able to migrate to Australia in 2014 after obtaining humanitarian visas and settled in Perth. Three children were born after the family arrived in Australia, bringing the total children in the family to seven.
6. In 2015, he attended English language school but left school in 2016 to focus on work. In 2017 he began working for Focus Products, where he was employed for about six years in a full-time role. At the same time, he also worked on weekends pushing trolleys. In 2022, due to a restructure at Focus Products, he found new employment with Steggles Chickens, again working full-time. Prior to entering prison, he worked for Steggles Chickens other than a period when he was suffering a leg infection between July and December 2024.
7. After he was arrested in 2022, he was living away from the family home. However, on or around 20 November 2022, a family meeting was held to reconcile him and his wife and resolve the issue that led to the offence. He returned home and stayed in the family home until an argument in March 2024 led his wife to report his presence to police. He was arrested for breaching bail conditions (which prevented him being at the property where his wife was living) and was held in custody for five days. He has not returned to the family home since that time and described himself as 'separated' from his wife. His wife and seven children remain living in the family home.

1. The first primary consideration, paragraph 8.1(1), focuses on the protection of the Australian community. Direction no. 110 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 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.[34]
2. Direction no. 110 provides that the protection of the Australian community is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations.[35]
3. Paragraph 8.1(2) of Direction no. 110 provides that decision-makers should give consideration to the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's conduct to date and the risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.

1. I must consider the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's criminal offending and other conduct to date.[36] In doing so, para 8.1.1(1) of Direction no. 110 provides that I must have regard to specific types of crimes or conduct which are 'viewed very seriously' by the Australian Government and the Australian community. Direction no. 110 also provides that certain other offences or conduct are considered to be 'serious'. I note that, while Direction no. 110 expressly provides categories of conduct to be considered to be very serious or serious, it does not limit the range of conduct that may be so regarded.[37]
2. In considering the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's criminal offending or other conduct to date, I must have regard to the frequency of the non-citizen's offending and/or 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 by not disclosing prior criminal offending; and whether the Applicant has re-offended since being formally warned, or since otherwise being made aware, in writing, about the consequences of further offending in terms of the Applicant's migration status (noting that the absence of a warning should not be considered to be in the non-citizen's favour). In addition, Direction no. 110 introduced a requirement under this consideration that I consider the impact of the offending on any victims and their family, where information regarding this is available, and the non-citizen whose visa is being considered for refusal or cancellation, or who has sought revocation of the mandatory cancellation of their visa, has been afforded procedural fairness as part of its consideration of the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's offending and other serious conduct.[38]
3. As noted above, the Applicant has been convicted of a number of offences. The most significant was his conviction, following a trial, on 23 January 2025 for unlawful assault occasioning bodily harm in circumstances of aggravation. The aggravating circumstance was that the victim of the offence was his wife. He was sentenced on 15 May 2025 to 12 months' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 6 months. He was also sentenced on that date for a breach of protective bail conditions that occurred on 10 March 2024 and received a $500 fine for that offence.
4. The circumstances giving rise to the 2025 Unlawful Assault conviction were set out in the sentencing remarks of Magistrate Scutt.[39] The assault was captured on a neighbour's camera. There was no dispute between the parties as to the circumstances of the offence, save for with respect to the Applicant maintaining he was provoked by his wife making statements he interpreted as a 'death curse'. At least with respect to the defence to the charge of unlawful assault, his account was not accepted by the Magistrate who found that the Applicant's wife had not offered him a 'death curse'.
5. According to the sentencing remarks, and consistent with the submissions of the parties, on 28 September 2022, the Applicant and his wife, Ms ED, were at home and had an argument in relation to money. Ms ED was running away from the Applicant 'to protect herself from violence'.[40] The Applicant pursued her across the road where he caught up to her.
6. Magistrate Scutt described the offence as follows:[41]

You grabbed her with some force when you reached her and then you threw several punches at her to her head and upper body area, before you physically forced her to the ground and then pulled or pushed her torso backwards until she was lying on her back. You then straddled her, and while she was in that very vulnerable position, you punched her with force to her face two to three times, including to her left eye and to her forehead. > > The blows, as I described when I gave my decision, were heavy, deliberate and calculated. I heard on the footage the contact of your fist on her face on two occasions. That was from footage from a house across the road. The footage demonstrates that this was a brutal and, in my view, somewhat sustained attack. There was about a minute from your first contact until bystanders intervened, including your children. > > A minute in circumstances where someone is being pursued in a violent manner is not a short amount of time. It is both fortunate and surprising that she did not suffer more serious injuries. I found at trial that she suffered a sore neck; a sore and swollen cheek; sore, swollen, bruised eye a bruised forehead. She was in hospital for two days, and she gave evidence she suffered ongoing pain for five days after the assault.

7. The Applicant was sentenced on the same date for a breach of a protective bail condition by being at his wife's home when police were called. He conceded he was living at the home, having reconciled with his wife through the intervention of family members, but said he did not understand the terms of the bail. The Magistrate accepted there was no violence and that the Applicant thought he was welcome in the home, but found that belief was not reasonable. The Magistrate noted that '[i]t is a serious offence, and it was a serious breach because it was attendance at her premises, but I accept you were not trying to perpetrate further family violence on her.'[42] The Magistrate fined the Applicant $500 which I accept was at the lower end of sentences available for this offence.
8. The Applicant had one prior conviction for a violent offence in 2015. The victim of that offence was his daughter. While the conviction was spent, the Minister submitted the Spent Convictions Act 1988 (WA) does not operate in such a way that the Applicant is taken never to have been convicted of the offence and the Applicant did not suggest that conviction could not, or should not, be taken into account by the Tribunal. The Minister's submissions were consistent with the Tribunal's consideration of these issues in Lynch and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] ARTA 452, [42]-[43] and I consider the conviction was relevant to the task being undertaken by the Tribunal and have considered it accordingly.[43]
9. There were no sentencing remarks before the Tribunal with respect to the 2015 offence. The material before the Tribunal included a Police Statement of Material Facts and the circumstances of the 2015 offending were that, during an argument between the Applicant and his wife, the Applicant's 12 year-old daughter stepped in between the Applicant and his wife and was hit by the Applicant on the left side of her forehead resulting in the daughter bleeding from her forehead and the police being called.[44] The Applicant gave a different account of the incident saying his daughter was upset and he went into her room to talk to her. They were arguing and another daughter grabbed his shoulder from behind and as he turned towards her, he accidentally hit his younger daughter. The younger daughter has no memory of the event.
10. The Applicant contended that the Tribunal could not rely on the Statement of Material Facts and that it must instead accept the Applicant's account. The difficulty with this submission was that the Applicant maintained that the incident was an accident which the Tribunal considered was not consistent with his conviction for assault. In questioning, the Applicant told the Tribunal that he recalled attending court with respect to the offence and to pleading guilty. He said he had an interpreter available to him and, when asked whether the court had accepted that hitting his daughter was an accident, he said that the court did not accept that and found it was deliberate.[45] Based on this evidence and the other material before the Tribunal, I find that the 2015 offence involved the Applicant hitting his younger daughter in the head as a result of an altercation with another family member and that the assault was not considered accidental. He was convicted of this offence on 20 March 2017 and received a conditional release order (with a $1,000 undertaking). Magistrate Scutt inferred from the sentence that the offence was 'at the lower end of assaults'.[46]
11. The Applicant's other offences were driving related. These recorded offences were:
    • On 17 April 2020, he was fined a total of $1,100 and disqualified from obtaining a licence for a total of 10 months for failing to provide a sample of breath and driving without a licence (offence date 2 March 2020);
    • On 9 June 2022, he was fined a total of $3,350 and his licence was disqualified from obtaining a licence for 30 months for driving under the influence of alcohol and driving without a licence (offence date 11 May 2022); and
    • On 6 January 2023, he was fined $400 and his licence was disqualified for nine months for driving while his licence was suspended (offence date 17 June 2022).
12. In evidence, the Applicant admitted that, up to the period of the last driving offence, he had never held a licence in Australia other than a learner's permit.
13. I am required, pursuant to Direction no. 110, to take into account a range of factors, including certain conduct which is to be regarded as 'very serious' or 'serious'.[47] It is clear that there will also be crimes or other conduct which can properly be characterised as serious or very serious, but which are not specifically mentioned in this part of Direction no. 110.
14. In my view, it is clear that the Unlawful Assault offence was very serious. This is reflected in the sentencing judge's assessment of the objective seriousness of the offence and in the description of the assault. While it was submitted that the offence was at the lower end of seriousness having regard to the maximum sentence available, I do not accept that submission and consider that the sentence of imprisonment reflected the very serious nature of the offence, noting the comments of the sentencing magistrate and the fact a sentence of imprisonment is a last resort. In any event, applying the Direction, the offence must be regarded as very serious, regardless of the sentence imposed.[48]
15. The Tribunal considers that, applying Direction no. 110, the 2015 offence must also be considered to be 'very serious', noting it was a violent offence against a child. This applies regardless of the sentence imposed.[49]
16. Having regard to the violent offences, the Minister submitted that there was a trend of an increase in the seriousness of the Applicant's offending between the 2015 and 2022 offences, and the Tribunal accepts that submission. Both were instances of violence where the victim was a family member, and the later offence demonstrated a trend of increasing seriousness.
17. The Applicant acknowledged that his traffic offences involved 'some risk' to the community and that he was selfish to place other members of the community at risk. The Minister submitted that these offences were serious and contributed to the overall assessment of the Applicant's offending as 'very serious'. The Applicant's explanations for these offences and, in particular, for an extended history of driving without a licence was that he needed to drive to get to work. The Tribunal considers the Applicant's repeated driving offences were serious and demonstrate a disregard for laws in place for the protection of the community. This contributed to the overall assessment of the Applicant's offending and conduct as very serious.
18. The Minister submitted that the cumulative effect of the Applicant's offending was serious and 'resulted in significant use of police and court resources'.[50] The Tribunal does not consider the overall offending could be regarded as frequent or that there was any demonstrated cumulative effect of the offending in the Applicant's case. While there was evidence of interaction with police on a number of occasions and with several court appearances, the Tribunal did not consider this was a feature of the Applicant's offending history which contributed to the assessment of its overall seriousness. There was no evidence the Applicant had offended after having been formally warned or that he provided false or misleading information to the Department. I do not consider any of these factors to contribute to the overall assessment of the Applicant's offending as very serious.
19. The Minister placed some weight on material produced under summons which included detected incidents reports made by the Western Australia Police Force. The Minister contended that, although not the subject of any formal convictions, the material produced under summons recorded that the Applicant had engaged in behaviour which the Minister summarised as follows (citations replaced with exhibit references):

(a) After attending Court on 16 October 2015 for the 2015 offending, the applicant returned home, started drinking and argued with Ms [ED] resulting in her calling police and a 72 hour police order was issued.[51]

(b) On 27 July 2016, having been separated for a year, the applicant was visiting his children when a verbal argument began between the applicant and Ms [ED]. The applicant's children spoke with police and provided their address to facilitate attendance.[52]

(c) On 30 June 2020, having been separated for five years, the applicant had attended Ms [ED]'s property, began drinking and became loud and verbally abusive towards Ms [ED] and their children. It was reported that Ms [ED] and the children were scared by the applicant's behaviour. Police attended and a 72 hour police order was issued.[53]

(d) On 9 August 2020, Ms [ED] alleged that the applicant had hit her and would not leave. Their daughter was present at the time and acted as an interpreter for police and a 72 hour police order was issued.[54]

(e) On 6 December 2020, police were called to Ms [ED]'s address and she reported that the applicant was extremely intoxicated. The applicant refused to leave the address and became very aggressive with police. A 72 hour police order was issued.[55]

(f) On 21 June 2022, Ms [ED] reported that the applicant was intoxicated and aggressive. It is recorded that the applicant continued to a[r]gue with Ms [ED] in the presence of police and refused to listen to police. A 72 hour police order was issued.[56]

1. The Applicant submitted these sources could not be relied on as they were not supported by sufficient corroborating evidence.
2. The Tribunal considers police records may be relevant to an assessment of the seriousness of the Applicant's conduct and offending, noting the Applicant must be afforded procedural fairness including an opportunity to respond to the report. The Tribunal's difficulty with the reports in this case was not their reliability but, rather, that they did not demonstrate or record any conduct by the Applicant which could be said to have amounted to an offence. The records reflect that Ms ED called police to remove the Applicant from the home when he was intoxicated, and she wanted him to leave. While the records indicate instances when the Applicant was observed to be intoxicated and said to be abusive by Ms ED, they do not record suspicions of violence by the Applicant or allegations of violence by him towards Ms ED or other family members. Further, Ms ED gave evidence that she called the police when she wanted the Applicant to leave the home to recover from intoxication or because they were arguing. She did not allege he was violent to her or that she felt threatened in these instances. In my view, while the records reflect a history of domestic disputes in which the police were called, and a history of use of alcohol by the Applicant, they do not contribute to the overall assessment of the Applicant's offending as very serious.
3. Overall, I find the Applicant has engaged in a number of offences which, applying Direction no. 110, are serious or very serious. Taking the Applicant's record as a whole, the Tribunal considers the Applicant's conduct and offending to be very serious.

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

1. I am required to assess the risk that may be posed by the Applicant to the Australian community by considering, cumulatively, the nature of the harm to individuals or to the community should the Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct and the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in such conduct.[57] There is no statutory constraint on the way that risk is assessed by the decision-maker, other than that there must be a rational and probative basis for the assessment.[58]
2. Direction no. 110 refers the 'risk to the Australian community' and 'likelihood of reoffending' as distinct, though related, concepts.[59] 'Likelihood' of reoffending is an element to be considered in determining the 'risk' to the community. The other is the nature of the harm which would be caused if the Applicant were to reoffend. In my experience, the terms 'risk' and 'likelihood' are often used interchangeably with respect to assessing whether an Applicant may reoffend. This can blur the analysis of risk to the community which requires not only an assessment of the Applicant's individual likelihood of reoffending, but also the nature of the harm associated with reoffending. For example, a low individual likelihood of reoffending may still represent a significant risk to the community where the harm which would be caused is very serious. Care must be exercised when referring to risk or reoffending assessments which are more properly characterised, in the context of this consideration, as assessments of the likelihood of reoffending. Those assessments may or may not involve assessments of the nature of harm which would be caused if the Applicant would reoffend such as must be considered by the Tribunal.

1. In order to determine the risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct, I must consider the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the Applicant reoffend.[60]
2. The Applicant accepted that, if he were to reoffend, it would have the potential to cause physical, psychological, or emotional harm to members of the Australian community.
3. The Minister contended that the harm which would be caused if the Applicant were to engage in further acts of family violence would expose the community to physical, psychological, and financial harm. The Minister contended family violence offending can cause a range of harms including through direct psychological and physical harm to victims; harms to children who witness such offending including teaching them such behaviour is tolerated, and it normalises gender imbalances in society which perpetuate sex-based inequity and violence.[61]
4. It was also contended that, if the Applicant were to commit further driving offences this may result in physical, psychological, and financial harm to members of the community, including other road users.[62]
5. In my view, if the Applicant were to commit further family violence offending, serious physical, psychological, and emotional harm would be caused to the Australian community and, in particular, members of his family who are victims or witnesses of such violence.
6. Further, if the Applicant were to commit further driving offences, including driving under the influence or driving without a licence, the harm which may be caused to members of the Australian community, including other road users, includes serious physical and financial harm, and includes the undermining of confidence in laws put in place to protect road users from harm.
7. I consider the nature of the harm which would be caused were the Applicant to reoffend in a similar manner to be serious.

1. In order to determine the risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct, the Tribunal must also consider the likelihood of the Applicant reoffending if he were permitted to remain in the Australian community.[63]
2. As I have noted previously, Direction no. 110 refers to the 'risk to the Australian community' and 'likelihood of reoffending' as distinct though related concepts. 'Likelihood' of reoffending is an element to be considered in determining the 'risk' to the community. The other is the nature of the harm which would be caused if the Applicant were to reoffend. In my experience, the terms 'risk' and 'likelihood' are often used interchangeably in material relevant to assessing whether an Applicant may reoffend. This can blur the analysis of risk to the community, which requires not only an assessment of the Applicant's individual likelihood of reoffending, but also the nature of the harm associated with such offending.
3. The Applicant maintained that there is a low likelihood he will reoffend.[64] He is remorseful for his offending, has the prosocial support of his family and members of the South Sudanese community, and good prospects for re-employment. He is committed to providing for his children. Further, he has reduced his alcohol intake since the 2022 offence and abstained from alcohol since he was arrested for breaching bail conditions in 2023. He spent a significant period in the community on bail without any further violence offending, demonstrating an ability to maintain a prosocial lifestyle. He has been diagnosed with PTSD and is committed to engaging with mental health supports to treat that condition and manage anger. He has a strong incentive not to reoffend in order to remain in Australia to support his family, and community members are committed to ensuring he does not reoffend. Psychological reports suggest that, if he engages in mental health treatment, he is a low risk of reoffending. Accordingly, he presents a low risk to the community and, in any event, is not an unacceptable risk to the community.
4. The Minister contended there was a moderate likelihood of the Applicant reoffending as the therapeutic outcomes of any future could not be assumed. In any event, even if the risk of reoffending were considered to be low, any risk of reoffending was unacceptable given the very serious nature of the harm which would be caused if he did reoffend in a similar manner to his past offences, including his serious family violence offending. The Minister contended that the factors which it now appeared contributed to the Applicant's offending, including alcohol abuse and PTSD, remain untreated and that he has not undertaken any rehabilitation with respect to family violence. The Minister contended the Applicant had not demonstrated insight or remorse. This presents an ongoing risk of reoffending.
5. In terms of assessment of likelihood of reoffending, there were several assessments of risk of reoffending in the material before the Tribunal. This included sentencing remarks summarising a psychological report, neither of which were before the Tribunal, and a recent report from a psychologist, Ms Gina Cidoni. The two psychological reports appeared to be generally consistent in the assessment that the risk of further family violence offending was in the low to moderate range.
6. In sentencing remarks, Magistrate Scutt noted that it was clear that the Applicant had a background of significant trauma but that there was no positive evidence that this contributed to the offence 'in the sense that there is not a psychological condition that has caused the offending, but I accept with little difficulty there have been some issues with emotional regulation and anger, and there is little doubt that is as a result of what you have been exposed to in your past'.[65] The sentencing report records that the psychological report indicated the Applicant was assessed to be 'a very low risk of violent re-offending in the next five years, and a low to moderate risk of partner violence'.[66]
7. Ms Cidoni provided a report to the Tribunal based on her assessment of the Applicant on 26 February 2026 and gave evidence at the hearing. Ms Cidoni diagnosed the Applicant with chronic post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and noted, with respect to his risk of reoffending, that:[67]

Risk of recidivism, including the risk of violent or family-violence-related reoffending, is considered in light of both static and dynamic factors identified across his history, presentation, and assessment results. Static risk factors include a prior domestic violence incident, a past breach of conditional release, and a pattern of conflict escalation within intimate relationships. Dynamic risk factors include emotional dysregulation when exposed to interpersonal stress, trauma-related hyperarousal consistent with post-traumatic stress disorder, situational financial pressures, and historical alcohol misuse associated with traffic offending. > > Protective factors include sustained abstinence from alcohol since 2022, absence of polysubstance misuse, consistent employment history prior to incarceration, stable community and church supports, ongoing contact with his children, demonstrated compliance and minimum-security behaviour in custody, expressed remorse regarding the offence, and willingness to engage in assessment and treatment.

The risk assessment placed him within a moderate risk category relative to normative samples, indicating a measurable but not high statistical probability of future domestic assault over a five-year follow-up period.

9. Ms Cidoni went on to note that treatment supports were available to the Applicant in Western Australia including targeted trauma counselling with ASeTTS. There was evidence that the Applicant had commenced a process of engaging with ASeTTS though no counselling had yet been undertaken. With respect to mental health treatment, Ms Cidoni noted:[68]

Engagement with culturally informed clinicians and interpreters is likely to increase therapeutic effectiveness, improve emotional regulation, and reduce the risk of reactive aggression by strengthening coping strategies, insight into behavioural triggers, and help-seeking behaviour. His history of sustained employment, compliance with custodial expectations, and ongoing family contact indicate a capacity to respond positively to intervention.

10. The Tribunal considered the assessment contained in the report remained largely unaltered in evidence before the Tribunal. Ms Cidoni continued to assess the Applicant as presenting a moderate risk of reoffending and that, with treatment, this risk may be lowered. She accepted it was not possible to say how low his risk would be in the event he successfully undertook treatment, which I considered was consistent with the evidence in her report.
11. In his statement to the Tribunal, the Applicant declared:[69]

I am remorseful for my offending. I understand the harm and distress it caused my wife and children. I regret my actions and take full responsibility for them. > > Upon my release, I intend to engage in ongoing psychological counselling and treatment as recommended by the psychologist who assessed me. I also intend to enrol in, and complete Centrecare's domestic violence behaviour change program to further address my behaviour and ensure that I never repeat these mistakes. My goal is to remain sober, continue treatment, and be a better father and member of my community.

12. Ms ED provided a statement and gave evidence at the hearing. In her statement she observed:[70]

From what I have heard, his behaviour has improved. The children have told me that he has been calmer, more respectful, and more focused on doing the right thing. This is different from how he was when alcohol was affecting him. These changes are part of the reason why I feel more confident about safety now and why I believe the risk going forward is low. > > I forgive him for the past but this does not mean forgetting, and it does not mean returning to the same relationship. I have moved forward and I do not hold anger towards him for what happened but this does not mean I excuse his behaviour or that we will reconcile. > > If he is released, I do not intend for him to live in the family home. It is better for both of us to continue living separately. > > His alcohol use contributed to many of the problems we faced as a family, especially during stressful times. When he was drinking, it affected his behaviour and created stress in the home. > > Based on what I know, I do not believe he is at risk of engaging in family violence in the future. The incident in 2022 was serious, but it was also isolated, and he expressed remorse afterward. > > Our circumstances have changed significantly. We are separated, and the way we communicate now is more respectful and controlled. There is more distance and clearer boundaries between us, which reduces the chance of conflict. Because of these changes, I do not feel the same level of fear or concern that I felt at the time of the incident. > > Even though I have not seen him directly, I am genuinely confident about my safety now. My view is based on the passing of time, the changes in our relationship, and what I have heard from the children about his behaviour. I believe the risk going forward is low.

13. While her statement indicated she and the Applicant would continue to live apart if he is released, she testified at the hearing that she is willing to have him live at the family home and that she thinks it will be better as he has learnt from his mistakes. While the reasons for that change were not clear, my assessment was that she and her adult children consider the Applicant will likely return to live in the family home and that there is a likelihood that would occur. I note that the Applicant was not present in the hearing room when Ms ED gave evidence and I did not form the view that she was giving evidence under duress. Ultimately, I consider that, consistent with past history, Ms ED has forgiven the Applicant and wishes for the family to remain together and that she was motivated to testify in support of the application because of this.
14. The Applicant was not granted parole, despite the Parole Review Report supporting parole, on the basis of the impact of his first term of imprisonment and considering the victim's safety, noting he would be released into immigration detention. The record of the reasons for denying parole were not before the Tribunal. However, a Management and Placement record from the Department of Justice noted with respect to parole:[71]

Parole was denied by the Prisoner's Review Board on 13/10/2025. Reasons for decision are as follows > > The Board is satisfied that you have unmet treatment needs (family violence and alcohol) as evidenced by the nature of your current offences and your criminal history You have not had the opportunity to participate in treatment programmes in custody to meet these treatment needs due to the short duration of the current sentence. The Board considers that you are an unacceptable risk to the safety of the community if released on parole. > > Your release plan includes no confirmed suitable accommodation.

15. The Applicant submitted weight should not be placed on this as an accurate record of the reasons of the Prisoner's Review Board. However, the Tribunal considered the record was consistent with reports the Applicant had not had access to programmatic interventions and, therefore, had unmet treatment needs. In any event, the Board's assessment of risk is based on different considerations than those of the Tribunal, including as to the period during which risk is assessed and the Tribunal does not place significant weight on the refusal of Parole other than to support the view of Ms Cidoni that he has unmet treatment needs, which she considers could be met in the community.
16. The claim that the Applicant was remorseful, and that he had learned from his mistakes, was supported by the evidence of his three adult daughters and his cousin, Mr JA, in written and oral evidence.
17. The Applicant stressed his relationship with his children and desire to support his family was demonstrated though his history and was a protective factor against reoffending. Mr JA testified to his belief the Applicant had learnt his lesson and that the community would support him not to reoffend. The Applicant stated that he realised now he would go to the community to resolve 'private matters'.
18. The Minister contended that the Applicant's history demonstrated a lack of insight and remorse. This included that while he maintained he was remorseful of the impact the 2022 offence had on his children he had not refrained from reoffending despite his daughter being impacted by family violence offending years earlier in 2015. Further, the Minister contended the Applicant had minimised responsibility for both offences, describing one as an accident and the other as a response to a 'death curse' spoken by his wife.
19. I have some reservations about the level of the Applicant's remorse and insight. The Applicant's repeated reference to matters relating to the 2022 offence and the 2015 offence as 'private matters' or 'family matters' causes some concern over his insight into the seriousness of that offending, and the general expectation in the community that such conduct is unacceptable. However, I am prepared to accept that the Applicant considers that disputes between he and his wife could be peacefully settled by elders in the community, and that reaching out to these supports would avoid further offending. I also accept he regrets he resorted to violence. However, I consider he has unmet treatment needs in terms of understanding how a family dispute ended in violence, why that is not conduct which will be accepted by the Australian community and how to avoid a repeat of such violence and maintain a healthy relationship with his wife and children.
20. I acknowledge the Applicant's motivation to remain for his children is genuine and I consider this is a protective factor against reoffending. However, that is tempered by the fact those relationships were present when past offending occurred. He also submitted he had undertaken a ReSet Drug and Alcohol Brief Intervention Program while in prison and provided evidence of having completed the program on 30 January 2026. A certificate for this program was included in the material before me.[72] While I accept he has taken this course, which is commendable, there is limited evidence regarding the nature of those programs and the evidence available is not such that the risk assessed by Ms Cidoni has been lowered to any significant degree.
21. Further, the Applicant has indicated he will take steps to commence trauma counselling[73] and made inquiries about a family violence course with Centrecare[74], though a plan to undertake that course was not mentioned in oral evidence.
22. While the Applicant submitted that I should assess his overall risk based on the treatment he has undertaken to complete and that the risk, at that point, would be low, as discussed with Counsel at the hearing, I do not accept such an approach is consistent with the Direction or with the evidence of Ms Cidoni, which recognised the degree to which treatment would be effective could not be predicted. Further, while the Applicant had taken steps to talk to a psychologist, there was no evidence of steps to undertake drug and alcohol treatment. This cast some doubt on whether all his treatment needs would ultimately be met.
23. Overall, considering all the evidence, I accept there is a moderate likelihood of the Applicant reoffending if he were permitted to remain in the Australian community.

Conclusion on the protection of the Australian community

1. The Applicant's conduct and offending was very serious. The nature of the harm which would be caused, if he were to reoffend, is also serious. The Tribunal considers there is a moderate likelihood he will reoffend in a similar manner.
2. Having regard to the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's offending and conduct, and to the risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or other serious conduct, I find that this primary consideration weighs moderately against revocation.

1. Paragraph 8.2 of Direction no. 110 provides that decision-makers, such as the Tribunal, must have regard to family violence perpetrated by the non-citizen when deciding whether to revoke a visa cancellation decision.
2. As detailed above, the Applicant has two convictions related to family violence arising from incidents in 2015 and 2022. He also had a conviction for breaching a protective bail condition in place to protect his wife, the victim of the 2022 offence. The details of those offences were considered above. The Applicant conceded his offences constituted family violence but submitted that they should not be given limited additional weight under this consideration. I do not accept that submission, noting it is clearly the intention of the Direction that matters considered and weighed under the Protection of the Australian Community consideration may also be relevant to the primary consideration of Family Violence, and this is one such case.
3. In addition to the common and unlawful assault convictions, the Applicant has been the subject of a number of police issued 72-hour restraining orders issued after police were called to the family home by Ms ED. For the reasons outlined above, I do not consider those orders to evidence family violence occurring on these occasions, noting the short term nature of those orders and the fact the Applicant and Ms ED both gave evidence consistent with the reports that police attendance was in response to domestic arguments and that the Applicant had not engaged in family violence against Ms ED on these occasions. This appears consistent with the lack of evidence of any court ordered restraining orders being sought or obtained arising out of these events.
4. Also, as noted above, the bundle of material prepared by the Minister also contained several Detected Incidents Reports, prepared by police, in which the name of the Applicant appears. Both the Applicant and his wife were asked about these in cross-examination. The Tribunal informed the Applicant about his right not to answer questions where he felt the answers may tend to suggest he was guilty of an offence he had not been charged with. The Applicant chose to answer the questions put to him.
5. As noted above, I do not consider those documents record instances of family violence, though they do evidence ongoing disputes in the home. Accordingly, I do not place significant weight on those events in this context. The Applicant denied engaging in violence against his wife on these occasions. This was consistent with Ms ED's evidence. Importantly, his evidence was generally consistent with the content of the reports themselves which recorded observations that no violence had occurred and that in general terms Ms ED had called the police for assistance in getting the Applicant to leave the property as he was intoxicated. While the Applicant's children were reportedly present during the offences and during some of the reported incidents, they testified that they were never afraid of their fathers.[75]
6. While I accept there was evidence of arguments where Ms ED called the police, I consider limited weight should be given to the incident reports to the police issued 72-hour Violence Restraining Orders.
7. There is evidence the Applicant has unmet treatment needs with respect to family violence offending, including a response to an inquiry to Centrecare, there is no evidence the Applicant has undertaken any programmatic intervention directed at family violence offending.
8. Mr JA stated his roles with Ngala Community Services and the South Sudan Community Association of Western Australia (SSCAWA) would enable him to connect the Applicant to services to address the risk of family violence offending, and that elders could support the Applicant to resolve disputes in the future. He observed the Applicant had learnt his lesson and that he (Mr JA) would ensure the Applicant did not reoffend. I note that the Applicant indicated he would be living with Mr JA if released into the community, though I note the evidence of the Applicant's wife indicated he may be returning to the family home. I accept that the situation with respect to reconciliation with his wife and his living arrangements may be in a state of uncertainty reflecting the circumstances of the relationship breakdown. This raises some concerns with respect to Ms ED and the children's further exposure to family violence.
9. However, having considered all the evidence including Ms Cidoni's report and evidence, I find that reconciliation and ongoing separation (as well as a future partner relationship) between the Applicant and Ms ED formed part of Ms Cidoni's assessment. While the Applicant considered Mr JA's evidence and desire to assist, those supports were available to the Applicant in the past and were not successful in preventing the Applicant from offending. This causes some concern that, without dedicated intervention, the causes of the family violence may not be, or may be only partially, addressed.
10. I note there was evidence that the family violence offences occurred in the presence of the Applicant's children. One was a victim of that violence. The Minister submitted material detailing the health effects of exposure of children to family violence.[76] Those effects are significant and are no doubt one of the reasons such conduct is not acceptable in the Australian community.
11. This consideration is relevant in the Applicant's case and weighs against revocation. Noting in particular the very serious nature of the 2022 offence against his wife and the moderate risk of further family violence offending, This consideration carries strong weight.

The strength, nature, and duration of ties to Australia

1. I am required to consider any impact of the decision on the Applicant's immediate family members in Australia.[77] I must also consider the strength, nature, and duration of any other ties that the Applicant has to the Australian community, having regarding to how long they have lived in Australia and the strength, nature, and duration of any family or social links with citizens, permanent residents, and/or people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia.[78]
2. The Applicant arrived in Australia in 2014 when he was 40 years old and has lived here for 12 years. His first recorded offence was in 2017, three years after his arrival. This was a traffic related offence.
3. The Applicant submitted that he has strong ties to Australia, in particular through his seven children who are between 7 and 25 years old. All his children are either citizens or have a right to permanently remain in Australia.[79] Four of his children are under 18 years of age.
4. The Applicant submitted that he has been 'intimately involved in the care of his children for all of their lives and maintains very close bonds with them'. While there was evidence that he has lived outside the family home for periods, I accept that he has been involved closely with the children providing financial, emotional, and practical support for their care. He maintains regular contact with the children.
5. His three adult children gave written and oral evidence before the Tribunal, strongly supporting his remaining in Australia.[80] MA, the Applicant's son, provided a written statement expressing similar support.[81] MA stated that the Applicant has encouraged and guided him, made him feel valued, taught him important lessons, and shaped his confidence and wellbeing.
6. The Applicant submitted he has a close connection with his wife, who is also a permanent resident. Ms ED gave evidence before the Tribunal and provided a statement. In her written statement, she noted:[82]

Before he went into custody, [the Applicant] provided financial support in the ways he was able to. His contribution helped with everyday expenses for the children, including food, school needs, clothing, and general household costs. While he was not the only provider, his support made a meaningful difference, especially with the younger children who rely on both parents. > > Since being in custody, he has not been able to provide financial support because he has no income or ability to work. This has made things more difficult for me, as I have had to manage all the financial responsibilities on my own. > > If he is released, I believe he would return to supporting the family financially. He has always taken responsibility for the children, even during difficult times, and I expect he would seek employment and contribute again. His support would ease the financial pressure on me and provide more stability for the children. > > If he were to be deported, it would be extremely difficult for me and the children. I would struggle to support the family on my own, and the emotional impact on the younger kids would be significant. They need their father not only for financial support but also for emotional security and guidance. > > His absence would create a gap in their lives that I cannot fill alone.

7. Ms ED gave evidence before the Tribunal, where she indicated she and the Applicant were likely to reconcile in the future and that she was supporting him remaining in Australia so the family unit could be maintained and he could support her and the children emotionally and financially.[83]
8. The Applicant also submitted that he has close ties to extended family members in Australia, including a number of aunts, uncles, and cousins, and is active in the South Sudanese community. The Applicant also provided letters of support from Mr JA in his capacity as the President of SSCAWA and Ms Ayor Makur Chout, Member of the Western Australian Legislative Council.[84] These spoke to the Applicant's connections to the South Sudanese community in Perth and his connection to his family. Ms MA, the Applicant's first cousin, also provided a statement of support where she spoke of her longstanding relationship with the Applicant, his connection to his children, and her fears for him if he returns to South Sudan.[85]
9. The Applicant submitted that he also has developed connections with the community through his employment over a period of approximately ten years.
10. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant has connections to the community through his immediate and extended family, involvement with the South Sudanese Community, and through his employment.
11. The Minister contended that, while the Applicant had ties to Australia through his children, there were periods of separation where he had maintained contact with them and he could continue to do so if removed. It was submitted that evidence of links to extended family was limited and the South Sudanese community was 'generalised and non-specific and that limited weight should be placed on those ties'. Ultimately, the Minister contended that the weight provided to this consideration should not outweigh that provided to the countervailing considerations.
12. I accept that the Applicant and his family members migrated to Australia with an intention of building a life here. Overall, I consider the Applicant has demonstrated he has close connections to the Australian community, in particular through his children who I accept have built lives in Australia and will remain here if the Applicant is removed, noting country information regarding conditions in South Sudan considered below and in particular the situation for women and children.
13. I find that the strength, nature, and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia weigh heavily in favour of revocation.

Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision

1. Paragraph 8.4 of Direction no. 110 requires the Tribunal to consider the best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision. Under paragraph 8.4, the Tribunal must make a determination whether cancellation or refusal under s 501 is, or is not, in the best interests of children who are under 18 at the time the decision is expected to be made. Where there are two or more relevant children, the best interests of each child should be given individual consideration to the extent that their interests might differ.
2. Paragraph 8.4(4) of Direction no. 110 goes on to outline the factors that a decision-maker must consider when determining the best interests of a child affected by the decision where relevant. Those factors include, in summary:[86]
   • the nature and duration of the relationship;
   • the extent to which the Applicant is likely to play a positive parental role in the future;
   • the impact of the Applicant's prior conduct, and any likely future conduct, on the child;
   • the likely effect that any separation from the Applicant would have on the child;
   • whether there are other persons who already fulfil a parental role in relation to the child;
   • any known views of the child;
   • evidence that the child has been, or is at risk of being, exposed to family violence by the Applicant or has otherwise been abused or neglected by the Applicant; and
   • evidence that the child has suffered or experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from the Applicant's conduct.
3. The Applicant identified the following children impacted by the decision:
   • MA, the Applicant's oldest son, 17 years old.
   • AWY, the Applicant's daughter, 10 years old.
   • YY, the Applicant's son, 9 years old.
   • ACY, the Applicant's daughter, 7 years old.
4. It was submitted that the Applicant was an active presence in the children's lives and that it was in their best interests that the cancellation decision be revoked.
5. The Minister accepted that this consideration will weigh in favour of revocation but contended that less weight should be afforded the consideration in the Applicant's case. In particular, where the children had the care and support of their mother and older siblings and where there is a history of family violence which may have negatively impacted the children this consideration should not outweigh other considerations.[87]
6. Submissions proceeded on the basis that the best interests of the Applicant's children generally aligned. The Tribunal has adopted this approach, noting, where differences in the interests of the children are identified, they have been separately considered, principally due to differences in their ages, noting MA is almost 18 years old and the other children are significantly younger.[88]
7. The Applicant's relationship with the children is a parental one. The evidence supported the Applicant's contention that he had provided financial support for the children throughout their lives, save for when he was injured or in prison. He had also provided practical and emotional support for the children, taking them to school and supervising them in the afternoons. While there appeared to be periods where he was not living in the family home due to separation from Ms ED, I am satisfied he maintained contact with the children throughout these periods (the details of which were not clear on the evidence) and continued to provide financial support to Ms ED for their needs. It also appeared that, due to work obligations, Ms ED and the Applicant were working shifts which meant one or the other was home with the children with Ms ED indicating she worked 6 days a week in a business and the Applicant indicating he worked nightshifts and casually on weekends. I accept this represented a sharing of responsibility for the practical and financial care of the children over an extended period.
8. As noted above, MA provided a statement of the impact his father's removal would have on him, MA stated:[89]

My father has always been involved in caring for me. When I was younger, he helped with everyday routines such as preparing food, taking us to school, and making sure we were looked after after school. He spent time with us by taking us to the park, going on family walks, sharing dinners, and being present in our daily lives. These moments made me feel loved, protected, and supported. > > My father has had a positive impact on my life. He encouraged me, guided me, and made me feel valued. He taught me about respect, family, and looking out for one another. His support helped build my confidence and made me feel secure. Being separated from him has been very hard for me, and I feel his absence every day.

9. The Minister submitted that the Applicant's offending may have negatively impacted the children. The Tribunal notes the evidence indicates the children were present during the 2022 offence and that the 2015 offence included the older children. There was evidence in the Detected Incidents Reports that the children were present during domestic arguments. MA observed with respect to his parents' relationship and prior incidents of violence:[90]

I understand that my father is currently in detention because of the incident of family violence involving my parents that occurred in 2022. At the time, I was younger and did not always fully understand what was happening. I remember feeling scared, confused, and unsettled during those periods. From my understanding and what I have seen, alcohol played a major role in this. When alcohol was involved, my father was not himself. When alcohol was not involved, he was calm, and caring. > > My view of my parents' relationship is that it was complicated and affected by many pressures over time. I believe they cared about each other and worked together as parents, especially during periods when alcohol was not involved. During those times, they were able to communicate, cooperate, and function as a family. I remember seeing them do everyday things together and enjoy normal family life. However, stress and alcohol misuse made the relationship unhealthy at times. I believe removing alcohol and continuing support greatly reduces the risk of past issues repeating. > > I am not fearful of my father now. Since stopping alcohol, he has changed a lot. He is calmer, more thoughtful, and more aware of how his actions affect others. I feel safe around him and trust him. I do not believe he poses a risk to me or my siblings. My father stopped drinking after the incident in 2022 and the serious consequences that followed. > > He has told me he stopped because he realised the harm alcohol caused to our family and because he does not want to lose his children. > > My father has spoken to me about his past violence. He has told me he is ashamed of his actions and deeply regrets the pain he caused. He has explained that he understands his behaviour affected not only my mother, but also me and my siblings. He has taken responsibility for what he did.

10. I accept the Minister's submission that the Applicant's offending has had a negative impact on the children who have been exposed to family violence but have also suffered the financial and emotional consequences of separation and his imprisonment. These impacts are not a small matter, again having reference to the impact of family violence on children highlighted in material submitted by the Minister. I also accept, based on Ms Cidoni's evidence that the Applicant has unmet treatment needs with respect to mental health issues and family violence, that there is an ongoing risk of him reoffending with respect to family violence. Exposure to such risk is not in the best interests of his children.
11. However, I am prepared to accept that his children want their father back in their lives and that their mother has indicated that she has no safety concerns in this respect, for herself or for the children. I note the children's older sisters provided strong support for their father remaining to support the younger children and note that, despite their own exposure to past violence, they testified as to sharing a strong bond with their father. I also have regard to Ms Cidoni's evidence regarding the impact lasting separation from their father may have on the children (below).
12. The Tribunal considers that each of the Applicant's children would benefit from the Applicant remaining in their lives. There is obviously more time for the Applicant to play a meaningful role in the upbringing of the younger children than there is for MA, who is almost 18 years old. However, if the Applicant is able to make good on his commitment not to reoffend and to address his mental health issues, commit to rehabilitation for family violence offending and abstain from alcohol, there is an opportunity for him to make a positive contribution to all the children's lives and to demonstrate a prosocial approach to his relationship with Ms ED that does not involve resorting to violence or alcohol abuse.
13. While acknowledging the impacts of the Applicant's past behaviour, the Tribunal notes the children would likely be permanently separated from their father were he removed to South Sudan. I accept both he and Ms ED would consider it would not be in the children's interests to attempt to relocate to, or visit, South Sudan in the foreseeable future. This is consistent with current travel advice from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Further, I acknowledge the family have suffered significant dislocation in the past as displaced persons and then as refugees, and this history would likely increase the impact of any further separation on the minor children.
14. In this regard, Ms Cidoni noted in her report:[91]

Deportation would also be expected to have significant secondary impacts on his children in Australia, with whom he maintains regular contact and an ongoing parental role. The abrupt loss of paternal involvement is likely to affect the children's emotional security, attachment stability, and practical support structures, particularly given the history of family stress and prior conflict. The removal of a parent figure who has remained engaged through visits and communication during incarceration may contribute to feelings of abandonment, behavioural difficulties, and reduced familial stability. From a systemic perspective, the separation would diminish existing protective social supports for both [the Applicant] and his children, potentially increasing long-term psychosocial strain within the family unit and reducing opportunities for positive relational repair and supervision following his release.

15. While noting there was no evidence that Ms Cidoni made these observations having assessed any of the children herself, I accept the general evidence of the challenges permanent separation from a parent causes minor children.
16. On balance, the Tribunal considers that it would be in each of the Applicant's children's best interests that the cancellation decision is revoked. The best interests of each of the children weighs in favour of revocation. Collectively, the best interests of the Applicant's minor children weigh heavily in favour of revocation.

1. The fifth primary consideration requires the Tribunal to weigh the expectations of the Australian community. Paragraph 8.5(1) of Direction no. 110 provides that the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. The Direction goes on to state that, 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) 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.
3. Paragraph 8.4(4) does not direct the Tribunal to attempt to infer what the expectations of the Australian community would be "in the particular case" (that is, with knowledge of 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. [92]
4. Direction no. 110 notes that the Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they raise serious character concerns through conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, of particular kinds. The paragraph directs that, in particular, the Australian community expects that the Australian Government should cancel a non-citizen's visa if they raise serious character concerns through specific conduct listed in sub-paras 8.5(2)(a)-(f). Those particularised types of harm generally reflect the types of conduct identified in para 8.1.1 as conduct which is considered 'very serious' or 'serious'. The Tribunal has found earlier that the Applicant has been convicted of offences which are considered 'very serious' under these provisions.
5. Paragraph 8.5(3) of Direction no. 110 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. In doing so, para 8.5(3) arguably further qualifies the 'norm' expressed in para 8.5(1), which refers to the 'unacceptable risk' of conduct being engaged in. This makes it clear that a 'measureable [sic] risk' of physical harm to the community is not required for the community expectation that the non-citizen not hold a visa to be engaged, where serious character concerns are raised through the persons conduct or offending.
6. This consideration will, in most cases, weigh against revocation of a cancellation decision if that expectation has been breached or if there is an unacceptable risk that it may be breached in the future.
7. As outlined above, the Applicant has engaged in conduct raising very serious character concerns and there is a risk he will commit further offences in the future. As such, I find the Australian community would expect that the Applicant's visa would remain cancelled. Accordingly, the expectation of the Australian community weighs against revocation.
8. It remains for me to determine the appropriate weight to be given to this consideration. This will depend on my assessment of the totality of the relevant considerations including the primary and other considerations.[93]
9. The Applicant contended that the weight to be afforded to this consideration must be affected by the circumstances of the case, including the seriousness of the offending, the Applicant's personal circumstances and 'any relevant factors in mitigation'. It was contended that taking into account various matters including the insight and remorse he has shown, the steps he has taken to address his behaviour, the low risk of him re-offending, his ties to the Australian community and the best interests of his children, this consideration should only be given minimal weight against revocation.[94]
10. In my view, the Tribunal can take into account the personal circumstances of the Applicant in so far as they are relevant to this or any other 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 in the ultimate exercise of the Tribunal's power in determining whether there is another reason to revoke the original cancellation decision. [95]
11. However, with respect to the matters by the Applicant they are relevant to other considerations which might potentially offset the weight of this primary consideration in the ultimate weighing exercise in determining whether there is another reason why the cancellation should be revoked. In this way, the matters specific to the Applicant's personal circumstances are relevant to the relative weight to be accorded to each of the primary and other considerations, including the expectations of the Australian community consideration.[96]
12. The weighing exercise is guided by the principles in para 5.2 of Direction no. 110. Paragraph 5.2(2) states that the safety of the Australian Community is the highest priority of the Australian Government. Paragraph 5.2(3) directs that the Applicant, having engaged in criminal conduct, should expect to forfeit the privilege of staying in Australia. Paragraph 5.2(4) expresses a principle similar to para 8.5(3) with respect to serious character concerns and makes it clear that those concerns are not restricted to circumstances where there is a measurable risk of physical harm to the Australian community. I note the Applicant did not arrive as a child or spend his formative years here and has not spent most of his life in Australia. As such he would not be afforded the kind of additional tolerance identified in Direction no. 110.
13. Ultimately, I consider this primary consideration weighs strongly against revocation. The consideration will be weighed against other considerations in the weighing exercise below.

(1) In making a decision under section 501(1), 501(2) or 501CA(4), the considerations below must also be taken into account, where relevant, in accordance with the following provisions. These considerations include (but are not limited to):

a) legal consequences of the decision;

b) extent of impediments if removed;

d) impact on Australian business interests

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.[97]
2. While this consideration in Direction no. 110 refers to non-refoulement obligations, it also makes reference to detention and removal, highlighting that there are a range of legal consequences of a decision not to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant's visa. The consequences of a visa refusal or cancellation under s 501 or related provisions include:
   • Unlawful status;
   • The likelihood of becoming subject to detention and/or removal;[98]
   • Refusal of other visa applications and cancellation of other visas;[99]
   • A prohibition on applying for other visas;[100] and
   • Periods of exclusion and special return criteria may apply.[101]
3. Generally, if a visa is cancelled, its former holder becomes an unlawful non-citizen immediately after cancellation.[102] Under s 189 of the Migration Act, an Applicant must be detained and removed as soon as reasonably practicable under s 198.[103] However, the obligation to remove an unlawful non-citizen under s 198 does not arise if a 'protection finding' has been made in respect of a finally determined protection visa application.[104]
4. While the Applicant was granted a global humanitarian visa to enter Australia, the grant of that visa does not involve the making of a 'protection finding'. As such, the Applicant would be subject to removal as soon as practicable under s 198, and to be detained under s 189 until then.
5. The Applicant contended that, in addition to those consequences listed above, the legal consequences of his removal included that the Applicant will become a 'removal pathway non-citizen'[105] and liable to mandatory imprisonment of at least 12 months if he does not comply with certain directions aimed at facilitating his removal.
6. The Minister accepted that the Applicant would be liable for removal and that, if the mandatory cancellation is not revoked, he will be unable to satisfy the special return criteria in cl 5001 of Schedule 5 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) and will be ineligible for most classes of visa that would enable his return to Australia.[106] Additionally, the Applicant will not be able to apply for another visa while in Australia (with the exception of a protection visa) in accordance with s 501E of the Migration Act.
7. Australia's non-refoulement obligations are technically irrelevant to removal and the duty to remove as soon as reasonably practicable arises irrespective of whether there has been an assessment, according to law, of Australia's non-refoulement obligations in respect of the non-citizen.[107] In the Applicant's case, the only basis upon which the immediate obligation to remove him from Australia if his visa remains cancelled would be stayed, is if the Applicant applied for a protection visa.[108]
8. In M1/2021,[109] the High Court considered the following question:

In deciding whether there was another reason to revoke the Cancellation Decision pursuant to s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), was the Delegate required to consider the plaintiff's representations made in response to the invitation issued to him pursuant to s 501CA(3)(b) of the Migration Act, which raised a potential breach of Australia's international non-refoulement obligations, where the plaintiff remained free to apply for a protection visa under the Migration Act?

9. The High Court found that, in deciding whether there was 'another reason' to revoke the Cancellation Decision pursuant to s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act, where the plaintiff remained free to apply for a protection visa under the Migration Act:[110]

(1) the Delegate was required to read, identify, understand and evaluate the plaintiff's representations made in response to the invitation issued to him under s 501CA(3)(b) that raised a potential breach of Australia's international non‑refoulement obligations; > > (2) Australia's international non‑refoulement obligations unenacted in Australia were not a mandatory relevant consideration; and > > (3) to the extent Australia's international non‑refoulement obligations are given effect in the Migration Act, one available outcome for the Delegate was to defer assessment of whether the plaintiff was owed those non-refoulement obligations on the basis that it was open to the plaintiff to apply for a protection visa under the Migration Act.

10. The Applicant has never held a protection visa and, as such, he would not be the subject of the bar found in s 48A of the Migration Act on making an application for a protection visa should the visa cancellation not be revoked. This means that he would be able to make an application for a protection visa, where any claims for protection would be considered in detail and where the Applicant would be afforded another opportunity to provide evidence in support of those claims. The Applicant's representatives accepted he could apply for a protection visa if he was unsuccessful in the current application.
11. In written submissions, the Applicant contended that non-refoulement obligations were owed to him because he was at risk of harm on return to South Sudan, noting country information regarding ongoing civil unrest in South Sudan and, in particular, violence against ethnic Dinka. In his later statement, the Applicant said:[111]

I fear returning to the whole of South Sudan, not just Bor. If I was returned to South Sudan, I would be targeted by the IO because of my Dinka ethnicity and Bor identity. > > In 1991, I was a victim of the Nuer massacre carried out by the 10 and Nuer militia lead by Dr Riek Machar. In 2013, 2014 and 2016 Nuer have attacked Bor people in Bor town and committed atrocities against Bor civilian because of their ethnicity, and I am very concerned for my safety. I cannot return to South Sudan as I left it very long time. I cannot go to South Sudan.

12. When asked at the hearing what he feared if he was returned he said the number on thing was separation from his children and the in South Sudan there was a lot of fighting and if he goes back with property he will be robbed and he has no way to protect himself. He went on to say that many tribes are fighting with one another and they don't like people like him speaking Dinka.[112]
13. The Applicant conceded that he could make a valid application for a protection visa if the mandatory cancellation of his visa was not revoked. However, the Applicant submitted that a decision-maker was not prevented from having regard to claims of non-refoulement when the visa under consideration was not a protection visa, and that deferral would not be appropriate given the obvious risk of harm on return to South Sudan, the length of time it would take to process a protection visa application (once one was made), and the prospect of the Applicant being detained while any visa was determined with the potential negative impact on his family members and the risk of worsening his PTSD.
14. The Minister contended the most appropriate course would be to defer consideration of non-refoulement claims to a protection visa application, given:[113]

(a) The complexity of assessing non-refoulement claims, including the Applicant's citizenship; > > (b) The fact it may not be possible at this stage to consider non-refoulement issues in the same level of detail as they are considered in a protection visa application. Where the applicant is able to a make a valid application for a protection visa, those claims will, if and when the applicant makes such an application, be conclusively assessed before consideration is given to any character or security concerns associated with the Applicant; and > > (c) the claims would be determined by a delegate of the Minister or in the Tribunal on review.

15. The Applicant submitted that, after considering non-refoulement claims, it was open to the Tribunal to effectively defer consideration of protection claims, but it should not do so in the Applicant's case, noting:
    • The serious and apparent risk of harm if he is returned to South Sudan;
    • The fact his 'current' visa is clearly a category of visa that anticipates protection obligations;
    • the length of time it would take for a protection visa application to be made and processed (which is highly likely to be measured in years), during which time the Act requires that he be held in detention;
    • the lack of legal or practical impediments preventing the Tribunal from assessing his claims, a task it routinely performs; and
    • deferring assessment would cause unnecessary delay in assessment of his claims, would be inefficient, and would have real and adverse consequences for the Applicant and his family.
16. The Applicant contended that, irrespective of whether a protection finding was made in relation to him, the Applicant could be removed to a third country, such as Nauru. It was submitted that the Australian and Nauruan governments have entered a third country reception arrangement that enables the resettling of unlawful non-citizens in the Australian community on the s 198 removal pathway. The Applicant cited news reports that those removals have commenced.[114] It was submitted that 'the Applicant is ill-equipped to support himself if taken to Nauru, particularly given his limited education and language skills. Further, there is nothing to stop a third country from refouling him to South Sudan.' It was submitted that, if his deportation to South Sudan or another country could not occur, the Applicant could be granted a Bridging Visa while he awaits removal but that, 'if granted such a visa, he would live in an ongoing state of uncertainty, which would be a significant stressor. He would also be subject to strict conditions'.
17. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant did not assert he was owed any non-refoulement obligation not given effect in the protection provisions of the Migration Act. However, he contended that the likely legal consequence of a decision refusing revocation would be a lengthy period of detention while his claims for protection were considered and that this was significant given his family circumstances and mental health issues.
18. The Applicant's claims for protection were set out in submissions as follows:
    • He has a well-founded fear of being persecuted because of his race, ethnicity, and/or membership of a particular social group, given his Dinka ethnicity and as a person from the Bor region. He particularly fears being the victim of violence perpetrated by Nuer forces. There are long-standing tensions between Nuer and Dinka (and Nuer and Bor) people. [The Applicant] has previously been a victim of an attack by Nuer forces (in 1991) and there are ongoing instances of attacks and atrocities committed by Nuer against Bor people.
    • Complementary protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa) apply - that is, there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of [the Applicant] being removed to South Sudan, there is a real risk he will suffer significant harm.
19. The Applicant contended that:

There is clear evidence that the security and humanitarian situation in South Sudan is dire. South Sudan remains affected by war, ethnic violence, chronic food insecurity and natural disasters, and there are a large number of refugees (including internally displaced persons and refugees from neighbouring countries).

20. In support of these claims, the Applicant relied on the following country information:[115]
    • Guidance on smartraveller.com.au issued by the Australian Government advising against travel to South Sudan due to the dangerous security situation, and the threat of violence and armed conflict noting the security situation is volatile and could deteriorate rapidly with little or no warning and advising persons in South Sudan to leave when safe to do so.[116]
    • The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect report which notes that, despite the entering of a power-sharing arrangement in 2018, implementation of the transitional framework has stalled, and the country's first elections have been postponed (most recently to December 2026). It states that hate speech, grave human rights violations, and localized conflict (including intermittent fighting and ethnic violence) continue to rise, and that, since the start of 2025, hostilities between government forces and opposition groups, as well as inter-communal tensions have intensified, 'with populations enduring conflict-related violence, sexual and gender-based violence, killings and other abuses perpetrated by various forces.' Its risk assessment states the following:[117]
      • A security crisis caused by the sudden breakdown of the power-sharing arrangement, defections, and confrontations between the SSPDF [South Sudanese People's Defence Forces] and SPLM/A-IO [Sudan People's Liberation Movement / Army in Opposition], mobilization of armed groups along ethnic lines, and the politicization of past grievances.
      • Impunity for serious violations of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and International Human Rights Law (IHRL), atrocity crimes, or their incitement.
      • Ongoing security vacuum amid a weakened Transitional Government of National Unity.
      • Capacity to commit atrocity crimes, including availability of personnel, arms. And ammunition.
      • Escalation of local disputes and inter-communal conflicts.
    • A report from the International Crisis Group on 21 January 2026 referring to the country continuing its "slide back into civil war". It states opposition forces and militias are taking up arms against government troops and making quick advances, and are now threatening the city of Bor, which is a Dinka stronghold. The report states that it is expected both sides will stoke ethnic grievances, particularly between the Dinka and Nuer, as they seek to mobilise supporters and ready them for combat.[118]
    • A report from Global Conflict Tracker refers to persisting political violence between government forces and opposition factions, the deployment of peacekeepers in 2024 after an escalation in intercommunal violence. And civilian deaths and abductions, severe food insecurity, and the influx of refugees from Sudan.[119]
    • Medicens Sans Frontieres reports that 2025 saw a severe escalation in violence at the same time international assistance was falling. It states that medical facilities in areas in which it operates are barely functioning or have shut down entirely, and that violence in the country has involved direct and indiscriminate attacks on civilians and health facilities.[120]
    • The UNHCR's Global Report 2024 for South Sudan describes the country as having one of Africa's worst displacement crises, with vast internal displacement, deep poverty, devastating floods, and an unrelenting flow of refugees due to the war in neighbouring Sudan. It states that 2.3 million South Sudanese remained as refugees in neighbouring countries.[121]
21. It was submitted that, having regard to credible country information, there is a real chance of the Applicant being targeted because of his Dinka ethnicity and Bor identity and that he would suffer serious harm as a result. This would include threats to his life or liberty, significant physical harassment and significant ill treatment.
22. It was further submitted that, based on the country information cited, there is also a real risk of the Applicant suffering significant harm, in particular a risk he would be arbitrarily deprived of his life and/or subjected to torture, cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment, or degrading treatment or punishment.
23. Mindful of the obligations outlined by the Court in M1/2021, the Tribunal has carefully read and attempted to identify, understand, and evaluate the Applicant's representations with respect to non-refoulement obligations he claims are owed to him. For the reasons outlined below, the Tribunal did not consider it preferrable to make detailed findings as to whether the Applicant is owed non-refoulement obligations. The Tribunal considers such findings would be more appropriately dealt with in the context of any protection visa application where the Applicant's claims and circumstances can be assessed pursuant to s 36A of the Migration Act.
24. The country information relied on by the Applicant, details an escalation in the conflict in South Sudan during 2025 with widespread impacts on the civilian population. This has included largescale displacement of persons and destruction of public infrastructure. There has been an escalation in inter-communal violence and subnational clashes including air strikes. An economic crisis and widespread flooding has contributed to food insecurity across South Sudan and neighbouring countries. The UNHCR notes that within South Sudan, protection concerns remain 'particularly high' for women and girls, especially those fleeing Sudan, unaccompanied children and people with disabilities. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade advises Australians not to travel to South Sudan due to the 'dangerous security situation and the threat of violence and armed conflict' noting consular assistance in the area is limited.[122]
25. The Tribunal considers it is likely the Applicant is a national of South Sudan but notes that such findings require a detailed consideration of the impact of the creation of the South Sudanese state after the Applicant's birth.[123] The Tribunal does not have before it sufficient information to make a determination on this point in the context of this review. The Applicant did not provide any evidence in support of his claimed nationality and non-refoulement claims other than oral testimony and the country information provided. In addition, there was limited country information offered to address his specific claims to be at risk of persecution due to his Dinka ethnicity or Bor identity in his home area, or more generally in South Sudan. The protection visa application process would afford him the opportunity to do so.
26. While it would be open to a decision maker examining an application for protection, including the Tribunal reviewing an application under Part 5 of the Migration Act, to obtain further evidence of the Applicant's circumstances and country information to enable country reference and other findings to be confidently made, and to explore country information on this and other aspects of the Applicant's claims and circumstances in more detail, that information was not before the Tribunal on this application.
27. I accept that the Applicant's migration history and the grant of a humanitarian visa gives rise to the need to address whether non-refoulment obligations arise as a result of his proposed return to South Sudan at the time of the decision or in the reasonably foreseeable future. However, that is in essence a 'point in time' question. Noting that the time which has passed since the Applicant was assessed to meet the criteria for a humanitarian visa it could not be said that the grant of that visa is prima facie evidence of a non-refoulement obligation arising with respect to the applicant as legal consequence of this decision.
28. The Tribunal accepts that it must 'read, identify, understand and evaluate the plaintiff's representations made in response to the invitation issued to him under s 501CA(3)(b) that raised a potential breach of Australia's international non‑refoulement obligations'.[124] This is necessary to properly assess whether there is another reason why the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa should be revoked. However, the Tribunal considers that, in circumstances such as the Applicant's, where protection claims can be fully assessed against the criteria in the Migration Act and 'a protection finding' made if the criteria are satisfied, it is preferrable to defer determination of those matters until such time as the Applicant makes an application for a protection visa. This is particularly the case where the protection claims are supported by limited evidence and country information and not all matters relevant to the Applicant's return can be properly determined on the information before the Tribunal.
29. The process for determining if protection obligations are owed is set out in detailed provisions of the Migration Act, including specific procedural obligations designed to protect the interest of applicants seeking protection. Further, since the enactment of s 197C(3), were an applicant found to be owed protection they would not be 'refouled'. This is only the case where a 'protection finding' is made. A finding by the Tribunal with respect to non-refoulement obligations in the context of an application under s 501 would not constitute a protection finding for the purposes of the Migration Act. Accordingly, the Applicant would still be subject to removal if the Tribunal found that this consideration was outweighed by others and the visa cancellation was not revoked. In the Tribunal's view, there are obvious difficulties with such an approach.
30. The Tribunal notes that, if the Applicant were to apply for a protection visa, and a protection finding were to be made, he would not be removed to South Sudan. Whether he met the criteria for a protection visa would depend, in part, on the relevant decision maker's consideration of exclusion criteria[125]. In the Tribunal's view, those considerations are distinct from the considerations relevant to determining whether there is another reason why the mandatory cancellation of an applicant's visa should be revoked. An important distinction is that, under the protection visa exclusion criteria, the decision maker must assess whether the Applicant is 'a danger' to the Australian community. While the matters relevant to making such an assessment may overlap, they cannot be said to be the same. This is because the seriousness of the Applicant's offending in the context of mandatory cancellation may be a determinative consideration, in terms of weight, against revocation of the visa cancellation, regardless of any significant ongoing risk or danger to the community. The Tribunal notes that s 501 would also apply to a protection visa application, however a refusal on that basis may give rise to further review including consideration of the implications for the Applicant and, in particular, the legal consequences of the Applicant's status in those circumstances.
31. The Tribunal accepts that the representations made by the Applicant, while better deferred for proper consideration in a protection visa context, weigh in favour of revocation. This is because the Applicant faces the prospect of a significant period in detention while such a determination is made which would cause him further hardship, noting in particular his recent PTSD diagnosis and the ongoing separation from his family. It is also because credible country information offered by the Applicant raises significant issues regarding the risks of serious or significant harm persons returning to South Sudan may face. These issues would likely need to be resolved prior to any return and the Tribunal accepts there are reasonable prospects a decision-maker considering his claims in more detail and with full information would find a real chance of serious or significant harm associated with his return. The Tribunal places weight on this factor in the Applicant's favour.
32. Submissions were also made that the Applicant would be subject to removal Nauru as a removal pathway non-citizen if his visa remains cancelled. The Tribunal does not accept the Applicant would be subject to removal to a third country as a legal consequence of this decision. If the Applicant does not apply for a protection visa, as no protection funding has been made with respect to him there is no information before the Tribunal to suggest he would be removed other than to his country of nationality once that is established.
33. If he does apply for a protection visa the removal provisions would not apply to him until that visa is finally determined. That includes the finalisation of any merits review application.
34. In my view, if the cancellation of the Applicant's visa is not revoked, he is likely to be transferred to immigration detention upon release from prison. He may then be eligible for, and granted, a BVR, provided he satisfies the definition of an eligible non-citizen under regulation 2.20 of the Migration Regulations. A BVR holder under the Migration Act is a 'removal pathway non-citizen'. Under s 199B, a removal pathway non-citizen for whom a protection finding has been made may be given a 'removal pathway direction' by the Minister to do specified things necessary to facilitate their removal, and the non-citizen must comply or face a mandatory sentence of imprisonment. However, a removal pathway non-citizen cannot be removed to a country in respect of which a protection finding has been made in relation to the non-citizen.
35. It was contended that the conditions of being on a Bridging visa and the consequences of non-compliance should weigh in favour of revocation. I do not accept this submission. Compliance with visa conditions is an expectation of any non-citizen. Further, there was no evidence before me that the conditions of a Bridging visa would be so onerous as to weigh in favour of revoking the cancellation decision.
36. I accept that, as a consequence of the cancellation of his visa, the Applicant will be barred from applying for any other Australian visa except a protection visa or a BVR. The Applicant may also be subject to permanent exclusions from Australia as he may not be able to meet Special Return Criteria 5001(c).

1. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is satisfied that an issue of non-refoulement obligations arises for consideration with respect to the Applicant's return to the South Sudan if the cancellation is not revoked. However, the Tribunal considers that it is preferable to defer a determination of whether the Applicant meets the criteria for protection and thus whether a non-refoulement obligation would be breached by his return to South Sudan for consideration in the context of a protection visa application, should the Applicant choose to make such an application.
2. However, the Tribunal accepts that the process of applying for a protection visa may take some time, during which the Applicant is likely to remain detained and would suffer hardship. Noting the issues arising with resect to return to South Sudan, the Tribunal finds that overall this consideration weighs strongly in favour of revocation in the Applicant's circumstances.

1. Paragraph 9.2 of Direction no. 110 provides that, taking into account the matters identified in sub-paragraphs 9.2(1)(a), (b), and (c) of Direction no. 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 their home country, in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country. 'Home country' has a clear meaning in the Migration Regulations.[126] The matters identified under sub-paragraphs 9.2(1)(a), (b), and (c) are:
   • The Applicant's age and health;
   • Whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers; and
   • Any social, medical, and/or economic support available to the Applicant in their country.
2. The Applicant was born in Sudan and resettled in Australia when he was 40 years old.
3. In summary, the Applicant submitted that, if returned to South Sudan:
   • He would face the prospect of violence due to ongoing civil unrest and armed activity in South Sudan;[127]
   • He would have no access to health services including for ongoing treatment of his leg infection and for mental health support;
   • His PTSD would be worsened, noting the evidence of Ms Cidoni, which would impact his ability to resettle and maintain basic living standards, including securing and maintaining employment;
   • He would struggle to support himself to maintain basic living standards due to a lack of support in South Sudan, the economic and security issues there, and a lack of familiarity with the country given the length of time since he left; and
   • He would suffer from permanent separation from his children and family.
4. The Applicant contended, and the Tribunal accepts, that if the assessment of the Applicant's claims for protection are deferred, those claims are still relevant to assessing the impediments he would face if removed to South Sudan.
5. The Applicant also contended that the health system in South Sudan is limited, particularly with respect to the treatment of mental illnesses such as PTSD.[128] With respect to the Applicant's return to South Sudan, Ms Cidoni noted:[129]

Return to South Sudan would be likely to result in a marked deterioration in [the Applicant]'s psychological functioning. His personal history includes exposure to armed conflict, forced military conscription, gunshot injury, prolonged displacement, and repeated threats to personal safety, all of which are directly associated with the development and persistence of trauma-related symptoms. Removal to the same geographical and sociopolitical environment in which these traumatic experiences occurred would reasonably be expected to reactivate hypervigilance, intrusive memories, sleep disturbance, and heightened physiological arousal consistent with post-traumatic stress symptomatology. The absence of stable family supports, limited access to mental health services, and credible fears regarding personal safety and community instability would likely compound this deterioration. The cumulative effect would be increased emotional distress, impaired coping capacity, and a heightened risk of psychological decompensation arising from renewed exposure to insecurity and violence.

6. It was submitted that the Applicant has not had any contact with any of his family members remaining in South Sudan since leaving in 2008. While there was evidence one uncle had returned to the area, it was unknown where he travelled and there was otherwise no evidence of contact with family in South Sudan.
7. The Minister accepted that the Applicant may face some obstacles on return to South Sudan. However, the Minister contended that he would be able to establish himself and maintain basic living standards in South Sudan.[130] The Minister noted the Applicant had not declared any health conditions other than an ongoing leg infection and recent PTSD diagnosis[131] and would not face any language barriers on return to South Sudan.[132]
8. The Minister accepted the security, political, and economic situation in South Sudan will present significant challenges for the Applicant. However, it was contended he would have access to the same level of social and economic support as is generally available to other citizens of South Sudan.[133] Accordingly, the Minister accepted that this factor weighs in favour of revocation, but submitted it did not outweigh considerations weighing against revocation.
9. The country information on South Sudan supports the submission that the country is in a state of ongoing civil unrest and economic hardship.[134] The Tribunal accepts the Applicant would have limited family support in South Sudan and likely no government support available to him. I accept Ms Cidoni's evidence that returning to South Sudan would likely worsen the Applicant's PTSD, which may impede his ability to maintain basic living standards and that there would be limited access to mental health treatment to address any worsening PTSD symptoms.[135]
10. On balance and considering all the Applicant's circumstances and country information regarding the situation in Soutth Sudan, I find that this consideration weighs in favour of revocation, and I afford this consideration strong weight in the Applicant's circumstances.

1. There is no evidence of any impact of the decision on an Australian business interest, especially one which would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project or important service in Australia.[136]
2. The Tribunal considers this consideration should be afforded neutral weight in the Applicant's case.

1. The Applicant does not pass the character test under s 501 of the Migration Act.
2. I have, therefore, considered whether there is 'another reason' why the cancellation decision should be revoked, having regard to the primary and relevant other considerations in Direction no. 110.
3. Paragraph 7 of Direction no. 110 sets out the way in which the relevant considerations are to be taken into account and weighed.
4. I must weigh the various primary and other relevant considerations outlined in Direction no. 110 against each other and undertake an evaluation of whether there was 'another reason' why the cancellation should be revoked.[137]
5. In determining the weight to be applied to each consideration, I have considered all the primary and other relevant considerations and weighed them in light of the evidence and findings and according to the guidance provided by Direction no. 110. I have gone on to compare and balance all of the considerations to determine whether the cancellation decision should be revoked.
6. I have considered all of the primary considerations, including the protection of the Australian community. I found that the protection of the Australian community weighs against revocation and I afford the consideration moderate weight in the Applicant's circumstances.
7. The consideration of family violence was relevant in the Applicant's case and weighs against revocation. I afford it strong weight in the Applicant's circumstances.
8. The strength, nature, and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia weigh in favour of revocation. I find heavy weight should be afforded that consideration in the Applicant's case.
9. The best interests of the Applicant's minor children weigh in favour of revocation. This consideration carries heavy weight in the Applicant's circumstances.
10. The expectations of the Australian community weigh against revocation and I find this consideration should be afforded strong weight in the Applicant's case.
11. In relation to the relevant 'other considerations' identified in Direction no. 110, I find that the legal consequences of the decision weigh strongly in favour of revocation. The extent of impediments, if removed, also weigh very strongly in favour of revocation. The impact on Australian business interests carries neutral weight.
12. Paragraph 7(2) of Direction no. 110 states that primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations. Further, it states that primary consideration 8.1 (protection of the Australian community) is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations.
13. Weighing the considerations in the Applicant's case is not a simple task. He has committed very serious offences against members of his family. His children were exposed to that violence. He has unmet treatment needs and presents a risk of further family violence offending. That risk is one the community should not bear lightly, noting in particular that the likely victims of his offending would be his family members. He has demonstrated a disregard for Australian laws, particularly in his traffic offending. That is not a minor matter.
14. However, he suffers from mental health issues as a result of past trauma in South Sudan and testified that he will have counselling to treat this. His immediate and extended family have committed to supporting him to attend to rehabilitation and live a prosocial, alcohol-free life. Further, there are significant challenges associated with his return to South Sudan in the foreseeable future and he faces ongoing detention while any protection claims he raised are considered and issues associated with his potential return can be resolved.
15. Having weighed the considerations in favour of the revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant's visa and the considerations against revocation, the Tribunal finds that the considerations weighing against revocation, being the primary considerations of the protection of the Australian community, family violence, and the expectations of the Australian community, are outweighed by those weighing in favour of revocation, being the primary considerations of the strength, nature, and duration of ties to Australia, the best interests of minor children in Australia, and the other considerations of the legal consequences of the decision and the extent of impediments if removed.
16. In summary, having regard to all of the primary considerations, and the relevant other considerations in Direction no. 110, the Tribunal is satisfied that there is 'another reason' why the cancellation decision should be revoked.

1. The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution, decides that the cancellation of the visa is revoked.

I certify that the preceding 231 (two hundred and thirty-one) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President S Burford

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

I certify that the preceding 231 (two hundred and nineteen) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President S Burford

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

ANNEXURE A - TABLE OF THE APPLICANT'S OFFENDING HISTORY

Unlawfully assault and thereby did bodily harm with circumstances of aggravation; Criminal Code (WA); 317 (1) B

Breach of protective bail conditions; Bail Act 1982; 51 (2a)

[Counts 1] FINE: $400; Motor Driver's Licence (Mdl) Disqualified: 9 mths - Cumulative

[Counts 1] Mdl Disqualified: 30 mths - Concurrent; FINE: $3150

[Counts 1] FINE: $200; Mdl Disqualified: 3 mths - Cumulative

Fail to Provide Sample of Breath for Breath Analysis Test

[Counts 1] Mdl Disqualified: 10 mths - Concurrent; Fine: $900

Common Assault in Circumstances of Aggravation or racial Aggravation

[SPENT] [Counts 1] Conditional Release Order: 9 Months from 20-MAR-2017

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

[11] See s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act.

[12] Migration Act, s 501CA(3).

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

[14] With the exception of day three of the hearing when he appeared by video. This was following the completion of his evidence.

[16] The 84th day was 2 March 2026 however that was a public holiday in Western Australia.

[19] Migration Act s 501(7)(c).

[20] Re Harrison and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] AATA 47; (2009) 106 ALD 666 at 685 [63].

[22] See Migration Act s 501CA(4)(b)(i).

[23] Migration Act s 501CA(4)(b)(ii).

[24] FCFY v Minister for Home Affairs (No 2) [2019] FCA 1990 at [63] (Thawley J); Deng v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCA 1456 (Halley J) at [119].

[25] Migration Act s 499(2A).

[28] Direction no. 110 para 6 referring to paras 8 and 9.

[33] Elsewhere referred to as Anagkuei.

[34] See also Direction no. 110 para 8(1).

[37] Direction no. 110 para 8.1.1(1)(a).

[38] Direction no. 110 para 8.1.1(1)(d).

[43] In summary, the Spent Convictions Act does not engage s 85ZR(2) or s 85ZS of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) (Crimes Act) as the Spent Convictions Act does not result in a person never to have been convicted.

[45] Transcript, 23 February 2026, pp 47-50.

[47] Direction no. 110 para 8.1.1(1)(a) and 8.1.1(1)(b).

[48] Direction no 110, par 8.1.1(1)(ii).

[49] Direction no 110, par 8.1.1(1)(ii).

[57] Direction no. 110 para 8.1.2(2)(a) and (b).

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

[59] RRRB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] ARTA 471.

[60] Direction no. 110 para 8.1.2(2)(a).

[61] Citing XFKR and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] AATA 2385 at [45].

[62] Citing Zaya and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] AATA 336 at [54].

[63] Direction no. 110 para 8.1.2(2)(b).

[75] Transcript 24 February 2026 pp 144, 173,

[79] Only MA is not a citizen having been born overseas and not yet reached 18 years of age to apply for citizenship. He is a permanent resident.

[80] HB1, pp 343-345, 346-349, 350-345.

[83] Transcript, 24 February 2026, pp 153.

[86] Direction no. 110 para 8.4(4)(a)-(h).

[92] Ismail v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 2; 98 ALJR 196 at [38], [51]-[52].

[93] Ismail v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 2; 98 ALJR 196 at [38].

[95] FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs (2019) 272 FCR 454 at [77] (Charlesworth J).

[96] RCLN v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 876 at [56].

[98] Migration Act ss 189, 196, 197C, 198.

[99] Migration Act s 501F.

[100] Migration Act s 501E.

[101] Migration Act s 503; Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) special return criteria (SRC) 5001.

[102] Migration Act s 15.

[103] 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].

[104] Migration Act s 197C(3).

[105] Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 5(a)(i) (definition of 'removal pathway non-citizen').

[106] Citing Rano v Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for Cyber Security [2024] FCA 1003 per Feutrill J at [12]-[14

[107] Migration Act, ss 197C(1)-(2).

[108] Migration Act s 198(5A).

[109] Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 17 (Keifel CJ, Keane, Gordon and Steward JJ (with whom Gageler J agreed)).

[112] Transcript, 24 February 2026, p 122

[114] Guardian Australia, Albanese government deports two more men to Nauru in secret, infuriating human rights advocates (4 November 2025),

[116] https://www.smartraveller.gov.au/destinations/africa/south-sudan.HB 1 pp391-404.

[117] Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, South Sudan, Populations at Risk (14 November

2025), at https://www.globalr2p.org/countries/south-sudan/. HB1 pp 366-370.

[118] International Crisis Group, Rebel Offensive Sounds Onset of War in South Sudan (21 January 2026), HB1 pp 364-365.

[119] Centre for Preventive Action, Instability in South Sudan (updated 21 March 2025), HB1 pp 380.

[120] Medicens Sans Frontieres, The dire situation of South Sudanese people and how urgent action is

needed to prevent a crisis (21 January 2026), HB1 pp 358-362.

[121] UNHCR, South Sudan GR2024 Summary v3, at 2-3. HB1 pp 386.

[123] Noting South Sudan has recently acceded to two statelessness conventions HB1, pp 385.

[125] See s 5(H), 36(1C) and 36(2C).

[126] Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) reg 1.03.

[131] Direction no. 110 para 9.2(1)(a).

[132] Direction no. 110 para 9.2(1)(b).

[133] Direction no.110 para 9.2(1)(c).

[137] CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 138 at [35]. See also Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 594; Minister for Home Affairs v HSKJ [2018] FCAFC 217; (2018) 266 FCR 591.