1. Under ss 501(3A)(a)(i) and (6) of the Act, the Minister must cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if, among other things:

(6)(a) The person has a substantial criminal record (as defined by subsection (7))...

1. Subsection 501(7)(c) provides that a person has a substantial criminal record if the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.
2. Subsections 501(3A)(a)(ii) and (6)(e) provides that the Minister must also cancel a visa granted to a person where a court in Australia or a foreign country has convicted the person of one or more sexually based offences involving a child.
3. The transcript of the proceedings of the District Court of Queensland at Brisbane dated 18 January 2024[14] records that the Applicant was sentenced to a maximum of three years and three months of imprisonment (with several sentences of 12 and 18 months each to be served concurrently), with a non-parole period of 310 days. The convictions relate to indecent treatment of children under 16. The Tribunal is therefore satisfied that the Applicant has a substantial criminal record within the meaning of ss 501(6)(a) and (7)(c) and that his offending falls within s 501(6)(e).
4. Given this, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant does not pass the character test and his subclass 155 (Resident Return) visa is subject to mandatory cancellation.
5. Accordingly, the Tribunal must determine whether, pursuant to s 501CA(4)(b)(ii), there is:

Another reason why the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa should be revoked.

1. Under s 499(1) of the Act, the Minister may give written directions to a person or body having functions or power under the Act, and a person or body must comply with any direction given by the Minister (s 499(2A)).
2. The Minister has issued Direction 110, Visa refusal and cancellation under s 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA ('the Direction') on 21 June 2024. It is expressed to apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) in making a decision under s 501 or s 501CA of the Act, and the Tribunal must comply with the Direction (as noted above, this now applies to the Administrative Review Tribunal).
3. Clause 5.2 of Direction 110 provides principles to provide a framework to approach decision making. These are:

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

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

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

(4) The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they engaged in conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, that raises serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.

(5) Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, or by other non-citizens who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only for a short period of time.

(6) With respect to decisions to refuse, cancel, and revoke cancellation of a visa, Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age.

(7) Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the non-citizen's conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation.

(8) The inherent nature of certain conduct such as family violence is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation, even if the information available at the time of consideration suggests that the non-citizen does not pose a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.[15]

1. The Direction also sets out matters to be considered in refusing or not revoking the cancellation of a visa. It requires certain primary and other considerations to be considered in making a decision, and states that in taking these into account that:

(1) In applying the considerations (both primary and other), information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight.

(2) The primary consideration ... (protection of the Australian community) is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations. Otherwise, primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations.

(3) One or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.[16]

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST NOT TO HAVE HIS VISA CANCELLED ON CHARACTER GROUNDS

1. The Applicant and his representative made oral and written submissions that the delegate was incorrect in finding that the Applicant represented an unacceptable risk to the Australian community and requested that the cancellation be set aside.
2. The Applicant submitted that he did not recall any specific instances of inappropriate touching while massaging four girls for whom he was their soccer coach, but conceded that it may have occurred inadvertently. He denied that it was intentional and stated that he was shocked when the allegations were raised as he had been massaging the victims on a weekly or fortnightly basis over an extended period, mostly with other people present in the same room, and none of the victims had raised concerns or complained to him directly.[17] It was stated that the Applicant now recognised the importance of professional boundaries and had committed to never engaging in such conduct again. It was also noted that the Applicant accepted full responsibility by entering an early plea of guilty to all charges, had not sought to minimise the conduct and had cooperated with the authorities throughout the investigation and court proceedings. It was further stated that the circumstances leading to the Applicant's incarceration had served as a profound wake-up call and that in future, he would apply a heightened level of self-awareness and caution to all future interactions and associations.[18]
3. The Applicant stated that he benefited from a very strong support network of family and friends, who remained committed to assisting him to reintegrate into the community. He had maintained a positive behavioural record while in custody and had taken proactive steps to reduce the risk of reoffending. His family had collectively decided to relocate from Brisbane to Sydney in November 2025 to create a new environment away from prior negative influences. Furthermore, the Applicant had taken a conscious decision not to return to his previous role as a soccer coach as he recognised that it might place him in vulnerable or inappropriate situations. These changes were stated to be reflective of the Applicant's commitment to avoiding circumstances that might compromise his rehabilitation.[19]
4. The Applicant stated that he was genuinely remorseful, and that he had strong letters of support from family and friends. The sentencing Judge also recognised the Applicant's attempts at rehabilitation, noting that '[o]pportunities for people on remand are very sparse, but, nonetheless, you have undertaken a number of programs to assist you in and towards your rehabilitation. Those factors stand in your favour' (paragraph 40 of Sentencing Remarks).[20]
5. The sentencing Judge further observed that '[The Applicant comes] before the Court with good references. It is unsurprising to read reference of the kind given that you have, in effect, no relevant history and you appear to have been a fairly prosocial person in your ordinary behaviours. You are supported by your family and that is a significant factor, particularly given that these generally - commonly - commonly see families disintegrate. It is a positive for you that your family continues to support you... Ultimately, when you are released from immigration detention, you will be subject to supervision by the probation authorities. You will be required to undergo various courses and programs which include the sex offenders' program, and you will be subject to psychological and medical and/or psychiatric treatment as might be necessary. And that will - the supervision will follow for two years in the community.' [21]
6. The Applicant's representative submitted that while the offending was serious in nature, it was not premeditated and appeared to have been unintentional, and the absence of deliberate or malicious intent should be taken into account and moderate weight afforded against revocation. It was further submitted that the Applicant was actively taking steps towards rehabilitation, including distancing himself from the prior negative environment by relocating to Sydney, and this should be given some weight in favour of revocation.[22]
7. It was further submitted that there was no indication that the Applicant's conduct constituted family violence.[23]
8. The Applicant and his agent noted that the Applicant had migrated to Australia in 1987 at the age of 14 and had now lived in Australia for more than 38 years. His immediate and extended family, including his mother and siblings, all resided in Australia and the Applicant had no family members in Mauritius. [24]
9. Moreover, they argued that the Applicant had been employed for most of his adult life and had made meaningful contributions to the Australian community through his employment and taxes but also through volunteer work, such as coaching local soccer teams and being a panel member of his children's school's Parents & Citizens Association from 2013 to 2018. It was submitted that these longstanding ties and positive contributions weighed heavily in favour of revocation.[25]
10. It was submitted that the Applicant had two adult children and three minor children, all of whom were Australian citizens, and that he was actively involved in the upbringing and emotional wellbeing of the latter, as well as being a trusted and supportive figure in the lives of his nieces, nephews and their children, providing guidance, care and stability that significantly contributed to the broader family unit.[26]
11. It was further submitted that the best interests of minor children should be given significant weight in favour of revocation, particularly as the Applicant's elder son had experienced a significant setback in both his academic progress and athletic development due to the Applicant's incarceration, and the younger children were struggling to understand the absence of their father and the reasons preventing him from living with them. The emotional distress had had a detrimental impact on their wellbeing and sense of stability.[27]
12. In addition to the Applicant's immediate children, his removal from Australia would result in permanent separation from his nieces and nephew and their children, with whom he shared a close familial bond. Maintaining familial unity was essential to the emotional, psychological and social development of these children, particularly during their formative years.[28]
13. In relation to the primary consideration of the expectations of the Australian community, it was submitted that the Australian community would extend compassion and support towards the Applicant's reintegration, particularly given his role as a father to young children who were in critical stages of their emotional and developmental growth and who required his ongoing presence and support. This weighed in favour of revocation of the cancellation.[29]
14. In relation to the legal consequences of the decision not to revoke the cancellation, it was submitted that the Applicant would be removed from Australia and would effectively be permanently excluded from returning. This outcome would be particularly severe in the present case, as the Applicant had built his life in Australia and played a meaningful role in the lives of his children, his nieces and nephews and their children. The Applicant and his representative argued that this factor should be given moderate weight in favour of revocation.[30]
15. It was further submitted that the Applicant was likely to face considerable difficulty in securing employment and re-establishing himself in Mauritius, particularly as he had not lived there for over 38 years, and because he had a blood condition which required monitoring (as about 1% people with it were at risk of developing blood cancer such as multiple myeloma) and which required annual reviews by a haematologist and a rheumatologist. If returned to Mauritius, there was a significant risk that the Applicant would not have access to the same standard of medical care available in Australia and this might have an adverse effect on his health and wellbeing. [31]
16. The Applicant conceded that there was no relevant information about the adverse impact on any Australian business of not revoking the visa cancellation.[32]
17. The Applicant acknowledged that he failed to disclose a previous criminal conviction (stealing, 2004) in an incoming passenger card in 2017 but submitted that the failure to do so was inadvertent as he mistakenly thought he only had to disclose convictions resulting in prison sentences.[33]
18. In conclusion, the Applicant acknowledged the seriousness of his offences; however, it was submitted that the conduct was neither intentional nor premeditated as the circumstances indicated a lack of deliberate planning or malicious intent. Moreover, the Applicant was assessed to pose a very low risk of reoffending, and this was bolstered by the proactive steps taken by the Applicant and his family to relocate to Sydney and for the Applicant to cease activities such as soccer coaching or providing massages, except to immediate family members.[34]
19. It was submitted that the Applicant benefited from a strong and stable support network of close family and friends who were prepared to assist with his reintegration into the community, and such support was a recognised protective factor against recidivism.
20. It was further submitted that the Applicant had taken the prior incidents as a critical wake-up call, and he had developed greater insight into the consequences of his conduct and was now significantly more cautious and discerning in his personal interactions and associations.
21. Taken cumulatively, and when considered in the context of the primary and other relevant considerations under Direction 110, it was argued that the factors weighing in favour of revocation clearly outweighed those supporting non-revocation, and that the correct and preferable decision was to revoke the cancellation under s 501CA(4) of the Act.

1. In the Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions,[35] the Respondent's representative argued that the Applicant did not pass the character test because he had a substantial criminal record, having been convicted of indecent treatment of children under 16 child under 12 years, for which he was sentenced to three and three months' imprisonment on 18 January 2024, and because he was also serving a full-time sentence of imprisonment in a custodial institution and thus came within ss 501(6)(b) and (7)(c) of the Act. The Respondent's representative argued that the Tribunal should exercise its discretion not to revoke the Applicant's visa cancellation because, taking into account the considerations in Direction 110, primary considerations 1 (protection of the Australian community) and 5 (expectations of the Australian community) weighed heavily in favour of the Tribunal refusing to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant's visa, and to the extent that primary considerations 3 (strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia) and 4 (best interests of minor children in Australia), and any of the other considerations (such as the legal effect of a refusal and any impediments to removal of the Applicant), weighed in the Applicant's favour, they were outweighed by primary considerations 1 and 5.
2. The Respondent's representative argued that the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct weighed heavily in favour of exercising the discretion to affirm the decision to refuse revocation of the cancellation decision. It was reiterated that the Applicant was convicted in the District Court of Queensland on 18 January 2024 of five counts of indecent treatment of children under 16 under 12 and five counts of indecent treatment of children under 16.[36]
3. The Respondent's representative noted that the sentencing Judge ordered that all terms of imprisonment be served concurrently and be suspended for five years after the Applicant had served 310 days in prison. In his sentencing remarks, Burnett J noted that the offending occurred in two discrete episodes at the home of the Applicant and his wife. The first occurred from March 2022 to November 2022 and the second occurred on 17 March 2023, after the Applicant had been allowed into the community on bail in 2022 following the first episode(s).[37]
4. Burnett J noted that the offences, which occurred while the Applicant was giving a massage to the four victims on separate occasions, involved: the Applicant touching the side of a victim's breasts, brushing a victim's vagina, touching the outside of a victim's clothing over her vagina while she was asleep, touching a victim's inner thigh and vagina under her clothes, and touching a victim's breasts while drying her and attempting to kiss her. At least one of the victims was on the Applicant's older son's soccer team, of which the Applicant was the coach. The Applicant stated that his son's friends would frequently ask for massages during their visits after soccer practice, and that he did not see any issue with it, as he had massaged people in front of everyone before.[38]
5. The Respondent submitted that these offences must, separately and cumulatively, be viewed very seriously, as per paragraph 8.1(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Direction, and this was so regardless of the sentence imposed by the court, as per paragraph 8.1.1(1)(c) of the Direction. In any case, the seriousness of the offences was reflected in the sentencing remarks of Burnett J, who noted that the offending was 'somewhat brazen,' that the Applicant took advantage of the young, vulnerable victims, and that counts 8 to 10 occurred while the Applicant was on bail. Further, Burnett J noted that the victims' parents submitted impact statements regarding the impact of the Applicant's offending. The Applicant's offending was not infrequent as it occurred on multiple occasions from March 2022 to March 2023, and the Respondent's representative contended that there was a trend of increasing seriousness when the Applicant's earlier theft offences (characterised by Burnett J as 'minor') were taken into account, as per paragraph 8.1.1(1)(e) and (f) of the Direction. The Respondent's representative further noted that the Applicant had also provided false and misleading information to the Department by failing to disclose the theft offences on his incoming passenger card when he returned to Australia from overseas on 17 October 2017.[39]
6. The Respondent's representative contended that if the Applicant were to engage in further criminal or other conduct of a similar nature, it would cause physical and/or psychological harm, including sexual trauma, to individuals, in particular children and their families, and the Australian community. As previously noted, the Applicant's past offending had already had a significant impact on the victims and their families.[40]
7. In relation to rehabilitation, Burnett J noted that the Applicant had undertaken a number of rehabilitation programs and stated that he would need to undergo programs including the sex offenders' program and that it might be necessary for him to undergo psychological treatment. The Institute for Urban Indigenous Health (IUIH) stated that the Applicant had engaged in counselling sessions to address his past traumas and to better understand and manage his emotions. Further, the Applicant submitted that he posed a low risk of reoffending, noting that the possibility of being removed to Mauritius had prompted him to 'undergo treatment.' However, the Respondent's representative contended that the Tribunal should give this evidence limited weight in circumstances where there was presently no primary evidence of the Applicant's completion of any programs, nor the nature of these programs.[41]
8. Burnett J further noted that the Applicant made an early plea of guilty, though he had initially denied his offending when questioned by police, and the Applicant submitted that he had 'shown remorse and [was] committed to seeking treatment for his behaviour...'. However, the Respondent's representative asserted that the Applicant's claim to be remorseful was dubious, as he had also submitted that he 'did not make physical contact with the victims,' only providing them with massages which they had requested, and suggested that his offending resulted from a 'misinterpretation.' Further, the Applicant alleged that he 'accidentally touched unauthorised areas while conversing with others' and 'the offences were not premeditated' and were 'accidental.' Moreover, the Applicant continued to maintain that he did not do anything wrong. The Respondent's representative contended that the Applicant had not demonstrated an understanding of the gravity of his offences, nor the vulnerability of the victims, and had not acknowledged his culpability as he maintained that his offences were accidental and that he had 'not harmed anyone in Australia.' The Applicant appeared to be placing blame on his victims by suggesting that he would now have difficulty placing trust in others.[42]
9. The Respondent's representative contended that there was a real and not insignificant risk that the Applicant would reoffend in circumstances where it was unclear whether the cause of the Applicant's offending had been addressed. Regardless of whether the Applicant now ceased coaching children's soccer, he would continue to have ongoing access to children though his own children and family members, and notwithstanding his submission that he had been assessed as having genuine contrition and remorse in relation to his offending, there was no independent evidence of that and any contrition or remorse appeared to relate to the impact that his offending had had on himself and his family rather than his victims. Further, the protective factors of family support and employment were in place at the time of his offending and were self-evidently insufficient to prevent the offending. In fact, the Applicant had access to the victims through his family.[43]
10. Ultimately, noting that the protection of the Australian community was generally to be given greater weight than other considerations (as per paragraph 7(2) of the Direction), the Respondent's representative contended that this factor weighed heavily against revocation.
11. Paragraph 8.3 of the Direction required that the Tribunal have regard to any impact of the decision on the non-citizen's immediate family members in Australia, where those family members were Australian citizens, permanent residents and/or people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia.
12. Paragraph 8.3(2) of the Direction set out factors to be considered in determining the strength, nature and duration of ties that the Applicant had to the Australian community, having regard to:

(a) How long the Applicant had resided in Australia, including whether the Applicant arrived as a young child, noting that:

(i) less weight should be given where the non-citizen began offending soon after arriving in Australia; and

(ii) more weight should be given to time the Applicant has spent contributing positively to the Australian community; and

(a) the strength, duration and nature of any family or social links with Australian citizens, permanent residents and/or people who have an indefinite right to reside in Australia.

1. It was acknowledged that the Applicant had immediate family members in Australia, including his mother, two brothers and a sister, his wife and their three minor children. It was noted that the Applicant had provided minimal information about whether he had contact with the two adult daughters from his first marriage.[44]
2. The Applicant's wife Ms Mahon, was a First Nations Australian and the Applicant had purportedly been accepted into her local indigenous community in Brisbane. The Applicant had provided evidence from the IUIH which asserted that his absence had 'exacerbated intergenerational trauma' resulting from the Stolen Generations, and caused Ms Mahon to experience relationship stress, financial hardship from the loss of the Applicant's income, and mental health difficulties.[45]
3. It was conceded that the Applicant had resided in Australia for approximately 38 years, including approximately three and a half years as a child, and had undertaken study and employment here. In December 2012, the Applicant was recognised for volunteering at a public school. The Applicant also had 24 extended family members in Australia, and had provided evidence from a family friend, Ms Kylie Hope Medley, attesting to the Applicant's character and the negative effect his removal from Australia would have on his family.[46]
4. Ultimately, the Respondent's representative accepted that this consideration weighed in favour of revocation.[47]
5. It was acknowledged in particular that any decision would affect the Applicant's three children with Ms Mahon, A (now aged 17), D (now aged 14) and E (now aged nine), as well as the Applicant's niece, 'F' (now aged 10), the children of his daughter Chloe from his first marriage (B, aged four, and C, aged eight months), and the minor children of the Applicant's nieces and nephews, including the children of Debbie L ('G', aged 13, 'P', aged 10, 'Q', aged eight and 'J', aged five), the children of Cassandra L ('K', aged nine, and 'N', aged eight), the child of Bradley Alleaume ('L', newborn), and the children of Corey Alleaume ('M', aged two, and 'R', aged one).[48]
6. The Respondent's representative noted that the Applicant claimed that he was the primary financial provider for his family and that it would be in the best interests of his children to allow him to live with his family in Australia. Further, the IUIH stated that the Applicant's absence had 'had a profound impact on ...[the Applicant's] children' and that they were experiencing emotional distress which had affected their academic performance and social interactions.[49]
7. The statements of the Applicant's children A, D and E indicated that they wanted the Applicant to live with them and that his absence had negatively impacted them. The Respondent's representative accepted that they would be adversely affected both practically and emotionally should the Applicant's visa remain cancelled. Accordingly, it was accepted that this consideration weighed in favour of revocation, though not determinatively.[50]
8. In relation to the best interests of the Applicant's grandchildren B and C, the Respondent's representative noted that there was no evidence in relation to the Applicant's relationship with them, including their dates of birth. Accordingly, on the basis of the current evidence, it was submitted that very minimal weight should be given to the best interests of these children.[51]
9. In relation to the best interests of the minor children of the Applicant's nieces and nephews, including G, P, Q, J, N, K, L, M and R, the Respondent's representative noted that there was no evidence in relation to the Applicant's relationship with them, including their dates of birth. Accordingly, on the basis of the current evidence, the Respondent's representative submitted that no weight should be given to their best interests.[52]
10. Paragraph 8.5 of the Direction outlined the Australian community's expectations. The Australian community expected non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen had engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, or where there was an unacceptable risk that they might do so, the Australian community, as a norm, expected the Government to not allow such a non-citizen to enter or remain in Australia.
11. This clause provided a statement of the Government's view as to the expectations of the Australian community and it was not for the Tribunal to determine for itself the expectations of the Australian community by reference to the Applicant's circumstances or evidence about those expectations. Rather, the Tribunal must give effect to the 'norm' stipulated above: _FYBR v Minister for Home Affa_irs [2019] FCAFC 185 at [68] per Charlesworth J and at [92]-[93], [100] - [104] per Stewart J, see also Pattison and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] AATA 3953 at [156] - [160] per Deputy President Boyle.[53]
12. The Respondent's representative contended that this primary consideration weighed heavily against revocation. In particular, the Applicant had committed offences involving sexual violence against a child, which raised serious character concerns (paragraph 8.5(2)(a) and (2)(c) of the Direction). Through his offending, the Applicant had put members of the Australian community at risk. These expectations applied regardless of whether the Applicant posed a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community (as per paragraphs 8.5(3) and (4) of the Direction).[54]
13. The Respondent's representative considered that there were two 'other considerations' relevant to this matter, being legal consequences of non-revocation, and the extent of any impediments the Applicant might face if removed from Australia to Mauritius.
14. It was noted that paragraph 9.1 of the Direction required the Tribunal to consider the legal consequences of its decision, taking into account any non-refoulement obligations and whether the Applicant was covered by a protection finding. It was further noted that the Applicant had not made any claims to be owed protection and there was nothing in the available evidence to indicate that Australia's non-refoulement obligations were enlivened in respect of the Applicant. The Respondent's representative accepted that, if the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, the Applicant would remain an unlawful non-citizen and, accordingly, would be liable for removal from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable: s.198 of the Act.
15. The Respondent's representative accepted that the Tribunal was bound to consider these legal consequences. However, the Respondent's representative submitted that the Applicant was not the subject of a protection finding, nor had any non-refoulement claims been raised before the delegate or the Tribunal. Further, in circumstances where the Applicant's removal and exclusion from Australia were intended purposes of the statutory scheme, and these purposes underly the considerations of the Direction, the Tribunal should afford the consideration neutral weight: _Stoneley v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affair_s [2025] FCA 143 at [32] - [38].[55]
16. The Respondent's Representative noted that paragraph 9.2 of the Direction required the Tribunal to consider the extent of any impediments that the non-citizen might face if removed from Australia to their home country, in establishing themselves and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country) taking into account:

(a) The non-citizen's age and health;

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

(c) Any social, medical and/or economic support available to them in that country.

1. With respect to the Applicant's age and health, it was submitted that he was 52 years old and had a blood disorder that required monitoring and which might progress to blood cancer such as multiple myeloma. The Applicant did not currently suffer from multiple myeloma, and attended annual reviews with a haematologist and rheumatologist for management of his condition. The Respondent's representative contended that the Applicant would have access to adequate health care in Mauritius to treat these conditions and there was no evidence to suggest that he would not. Further, while Mauritius was a multilingual society, the official language was English and the Respondent's representative therefore contended that there would not be any significant language barriers for the Applicant.[56]
2. Ultimately, the Respondent's representative contended that the Tribunal should only afford this consideration limited weight in favour of revocation.
3. The Respondent's representative concluded that the factors that weighed against revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant's visa outweighed the factors in favour of revocation. The Respondent's representative contended that the Tribunal should not be satisfied that there was another reason why the decision to cancel the Applicant's visa should be revoked, and therefore, it should affirm the decision under review.[57]

1. In response to the Respondent's Statement of Facts and Contentions, the Applicant submitted that while acknowledging the seriousness of his past offending:
   • in FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185, the Full Federal Court emphasised that the protection of the Australian community required a predictive assessment of future risk, rather than a punitive response focussed solely on past criminal conduct;
   • the Applicant had shown genuine remorse, acknowledged the harm caused by his actions, and had taken meaningful steps to seek treatment. These factors demonstrated clear prospects for rehabilitation and reduced risk of reoffending;
   • in Acting Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v CWY20 [2021] FCAFC 195, the Full Court dismissed the Minister's appeal and upheld the Tribunal's decision to revoke the visa cancellation, despite that case involving child sexual abuse, a more serious form of offending;
   • similarly, in QJMV v Minister for Immigration [2020] AATA 1246 and NRFX and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] AATA 1577, both involving child sex offences, the Tribunal nevertheless set aside the cancellation decisions;
   • compared to these matters, the Applicant's offending was of a less egregious nature and did not reflect conduct considered to be of the most serious kind;
   • Burnett J in his sentencing remarks made it explicitly clear: 'You will be directed to undertake the sex offenders' program as part of your probation service;' and
   • in light of his rehabilitation efforts and the relatively lower risk he presented to the Australian community, the protection of the community did not weigh so heavily as to preclude revocation of the visa cancellation.[58]
2. It was reiterated that the Applicant had lived in Australia for nearly four decades, with strong family and social ties here. In CJO23 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 1228, the Court found that the AAT failed to give 'considerable weight' to the applicant's lengthy residence in Australia since 14, as required by paragraph 8.3(4)(a)(i) of Direction 99, which mandated that time spent in Australia during and since a person's formative years be given considerable weight, regardless of the level or timing of the offending. In that case, the Tribunal focussed primarily on the limited positive contribution and persistent offending without appropriately weighing the applicant's formative ties. The Court found that this was a material jurisdictional area, leading to the AAT's decision being set aside.[59]
3. In the case of LRMM v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 51, Collier J found that the Tribunal had given 'very heavy weight' to protection of the Australian community and community expectations, had given 'moderate weight' to LRMM's ties to Australia and the best interests of minor children, and ultimately found that there was no reason to revoke the cancellation pursuant to s 501CA(4)(b)(ii). Collier J found that the Tribunal had failed to adequately assess the impact of immediate family members and wrongly reduced the weight that should have been given to LRMM's formative years in Australia, contrary to paragraph 8.3(4)(a)(i), and the Court found that the Tribunal had applied impermissible criteria (e.g. lack of positive contribution) to reduce the weight that had to be given under Direction No. 99.[60]
4. It was contended that the best interests of the Applicant's minor children were of paramount importance and had to be treated with genuine seriousness. The Applicant's three minor children were directly impacted by his absence, which had caused emotional and educational harm. [61]
5. In the case of Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh [1995] HCA 20; 183 CLR 273, the Court held that while the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC) was not incorporated into Australian law, its ratification by the Executive created a legitimate expectation that decision-makers would treat the best interests of affected children as a primary consideration. Moreover, if a decision-maker proposed to act inconsistently with that expectation, procedural fairness required that affected parties be notified and given an opportunity to respond. Toohey and Gaudron JJ further held that the children's Australian citizenship added further weight to the expectation that their welfare would be considered.[62]
6. Other cases had also set aside Tribunal decisions where the Tribunal was found to have given insufficient consideration to the interests of minor children affected, such as NBCM v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 1013 (per Markovic J), Nweke v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FCA 266 (per Jagot J), and Lesianawai v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FCA 897 (per Katzmann J).[63]
7. It was submitted that this consideration should be given significant weight in this case.
8. While the Respondent relied on FYBR regarding the expectations of the Australian community factor, it was submitted that the Tribunal must not apply this factor in isolation or mechanically. The Full Court in FYBR clarified that while community expectations are to be given greater weight, they do not override the need for a careful evaluation of all factors ([92] - [104]).
9. Finally, it was reiterated that the Applicant suffered from a blood disorder requiring specialised care that might not be available in Mauritius, and it was reiterated that he had no meaningful social network in Mauritius, having left as a minor nearly 38 years ago.[64]
10. The Applicant and his agent concluded that when balancing all of the Direction 110 considerations and in line with relevant caselaw, greater weight should be given to:
    • the best interests of the Applicant's minor children;
    • the Applicant's strong and enduring ties to Australia;
    • his rehabilitation prospects and reduced risk of reoffending; and
    • the impediments that he would face if returned to Mauritius.
11. Accordingly, they reiterated that the decision under review should be set aside and the Tribunal should substitute a decision revoking the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa.

1. The Direction contains five primary considerations, which are:

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

(2) whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence;

(3) the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia;

(4) the best interests of minor children in Australia;

(5) expectations of the Australian community.[65]

1. The Tribunal has considered each one in turn, keeping in mind the principles in cl 5.2 of the Direction.

1. The Direction requires decision-makers to keep in mind that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government, and that the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens.[66]
2. 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.[67]
3. Decision-makers should consider 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.[68]

1. The Direction provides factors the Tribunal must consider when examining the nature and seriousness of the criminal offending or other conduct to date.[69]

1. The Applicant's convictions are set out above at paragraphs 9 and 41.

Sentencing remarks, 18 January 2024[7]

1. His Honour Justice Burnett found that the Applicant had pleaded guilty to 10 counts of indecent treatment of a child, five of which related to a child under 16, under 12, each of which carried a maximum penalty of 20 years' imprisonment, and five of which related to a child under 16, each of which carried a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment. Burnett J noted that the complainants were all known to the Applicant and that the counts involved offending which occurred in two discrete episodes, the first occurring between March and November 2022 and the second on 17 March 2023.
2. Burnett J described the offences as follows:
   • Count 1 - brushing against a complainant under 12's vagina and the side of her breasts during a massage;
   • Counts 2 and 3 - touching the outside of another complainant under 12's clothing over her vagina while she was asleep;
   • Count 4 - touching another complainant under 12's inner thigh near her vagina and brushing past the sides of her breasts during a massage;
   • Count 5 - touching one of the previous complainants on the vagina during a massage;
   • Count 6 - touching the youngest complainant's breasts during a massage;
   • Count 7 - touching the youngest complainant's inner thigh and vagina under clothes during a massage;
   • Counts 8, 9 and 10 - all occurred on the same occasion, involving touching a complainant between 12 and 16 on the breasts while drying her, and attempting to kiss her.
3. Burnett J stated that 'one could describe the offending as somewhat brazen... the offending occurred on occasions while you were at your residence... The offending subsequently came to light when a complaint was made by one of the children which, in turn, lead to further disclosures... When you were initially spoken to about the first two complainants... you were interviewed by police. You denied that there had been any inappropriate touching of either of those complainants and you were allowed on bail. That occurred in March of 2022 but as we now know, about 12 months later, there was a second event, which involved the third complainant. She too made a complaint. You were spoken to by police in relation to these matters and, ultimately, admitted to drying her hair but denied any inappropriate touching of her breasts. On that occasion, you were denied bail, and you have been in custody since that time.'
4. Burnett J observed that '[a]t the time of the offending, you were 48 to 50 years of age. You are now 51. You have a minor and irrelevant criminal history. It relates to an offence of dishonesty, which was committed in 2004 and dealt with by the imposition of a community-based order in the New South Wales local Court. It does not appear to be of any particular relevance to sentence today, although I note the matter... Otherwise, it is plain that your offending had a significant impact upon the complainants. It has, unsurprisingly, caused each of them quite a deal of distress, and, unsurprisingly, their complaints of ongoing distress are evident to me today. In particular, I am conscious of the statements made by each of the principal complainants' parents about the way in which these matters have impacted ...[the children] who were the subject of your assaults. I note also the consequential impact that it... has had, bearing in mind that these matters came to light in a very small community and it saw one of ... the siblings of those affected children being subjected to bullying and so forth... I note in particular the sense of distress that the parents feel about their own... guilty following these events. It is, of course, entirely understandable that they might feel that... they ought not to because they are completely blameless in relation to all these matters. But nonetheless, it is a proper and common emotion to be experienced. So the offending has had a significant impact on, not just the children, but their broader sphere.'
5. Burnett J noted that '[a]side from these matters, you are not an Australian citizen. You came to Australia at the age of about 13 [sic], and you have been a permanent resident since that time. Understandably, having taken up residence in Australia, you have been educated here and taken up employment. You have married, and you now have three children. Their ages range from 15 to eight years of age. While I am conscious that this offending will have had an impact upon your family, the fact remains that you, of course, are the author of those matters... I note that you, aside from a personal issue which related to a miscarriage - you otherwise are in reasonable health except for the prospect of tests for a blood condition and a tumour in your spine, together with osteoarthritis, but they are all matters that can be dealt with in the custodial environment without any difficulty. You were otherwise in employment until these events occurred. You have been on remand and, as I have noted, opportunities for people on remand are very sparse, but nonetheless, you have undertaken a number of programs to assist you in and towards your rehabilitation. Those factors stand in your favour... Otherwise, this is largely an early plea. The children were not required to be cross-examined, and there is significant utilitarian value in you - your attitude to the prosecution of this matter. The only matter that stands against you... are the initial denials of offending when you were first spoken to by police.'
6. Burnett J observed that 'You come before the Court with good references. It is unsurprising to read references of the kind given that you have, in effect, no other relevant history and you appear to have been a fairly prosocial person in your ordinary behaviours. You are supported by your family and that is a significant factor, particularly given that these charges generally - commonly - commonly see families disintegrate. It is a positive for you that your family continues to support you... Against you so far as the offending is concerned is... the fact that you are a mature offender. There was a significant age difference between yourself and the complainants. You took advantage of those complainants. They were vulnerable to your entrée, and the offending against then, as I have noted, has had a significant impact. It is particularly aggravating in this case that the offending the subject of counts 8 to 10 occurred while you were on bail in relation to counts 1 to 7. That... is not to miss observing that this involved three complainants... and another. The offending also varies in quality. Some of it less serious than other parts... One offence involved you taking advantage of a child who was sleeping - or at least two of those counts involved you taking advantage of a child who was sleeping on that occasion. And some of the offences involved skin on skin contact. A significant body of the offending involved mere touching through clothes, but, nonetheless, it collectively is a significant body of offending. It is to your favour that the offending did not involve any other what has been described in the defence outline as gross behaviour...'
7. In sentencing the Applicant, Burnett J stated that: '... your situation poses some challenges because while something in the order of three years is an appropriate head sentence, you have served a little over 10 months in custody. And the reality is that if you were subject to a conventional order, which might see you subject to parole eligibility, you would still have a significant time in custody before you could complete the various programs that are necessary before you would be considered eligible for parole. That... would probably take you well past - well over 50 per cent of the sentence that might be imposed today, and that has not only the effect of unfairness upon you in terms of having you not enjoy the benefit of some of the favourable features for me to consider in sentence, but also denies the community protection by having you supervised when you are ultimately released. .. The difficulty is compounded because you will not go from - when you are ultimately released from Corrective Services custody, you will go directly into immigration detention for the resolution of matters relevant to your visa. The effect of all that could see you serve well in excess of any term of imprisonment that I set today as a head sentence... It is for those reasons that I am going to impose - structure a sentence... the effect of it will be to see you essentially released into the custody of the immigration detention... personnel. You can commence the immigration process. Ultimately, when you are released from immigration detention, you will be subject to supervision by the ... probation authorities. You will be required to undergo various courses and programs which include the sex offenders' program, and you will be subject to psychological and medical and/or psychiatric treatment as might be necessary... the supervision will follow for two years in the community... And then following that, you will be subject to a good behaviour requirement which can see you brought back before me or another Judge and sentenced in relation to any further offending... If you successfully complete your probation without committing any offences, you will then still have five years from today... I am not sure how that will work out in terms of actual time if it takes some time for you to achieve release from immigration detention, as I expect it will. That means that from whatever time probation finishes until five years from today will be subject to you being of good behaviour... so far as probation is concerned, the terms... are these: that during the period of probation, you... must not commit another offence. You will be required to report to the probation service... within 24 hours of your release from immigration detention. During your period of probation, you will be required to keep the probation service informed of your place of residence and employment and of any changes of those particulars within two business days... you will be required to undertake such courses and programs as are directed by the probation service. That, in particular, will include the sex offenders' program... And during the period of probation, you will be the subject to such medical, psychological or psychiatric treatment as is directed by the probation service.'
8. Given that the Applicant's offending involved child sex offences, the Tribunal regards this offending as very serious, as per paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a)(ii) of the Direction.
9. The Tribunal considers that this is reflected in the fact that the Judge imposed a custodial sentence on the Applicant for the offences, albeit a relatively short one of three years and three months (suspended after 310 days) in the context where the maximum penalty that could be imposed was 20 years (in the case of the five counts involving children under 12) and 14 years (in the case of the five counts involving children under 16 but over 12).

1. There was no direct evidence before the Tribunal regarding the impact of the offending on any victim, such as a victim impact statement. However, as set out above, the sentencing Judge referred to the fact that the Applicant's offending had had a significant and distressing effect on the victims and their parents. This was acknowledged by the Applicant in his written submissions to the Tribunal and at the hearing. The Tribunal accepts this to be the case.

Whether trend of increasing seriousness of offending

1. As to whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness in the Applicant's offending, the Tribunal notes that the Applicant was charged with stealing property as a clerk or servant in May 2004 and received a community service order of 300 hours. It concurs with the sentencing Judge that this offence is unrelated in nature to the offences in 2021 and 2023 for which the Applicant was convicted, and that the stealing offence occurred nearly 20 years prior to the current offending. While not condoning stealing property, the Tribunal does not consider that this offence, when taken into consideration with the present sex offences, demonstrates a trend of increasing seriousness in the Applicant's offending, given the disparate nature of the offences and the lengthy time between their occurrence.
2. As noted below, the fact that the second offending occurred while the Applicant was on bail suggests offending of increasing seriousness, although the particulars of the second offending itself do not appear to be more serious than the earlier offending. The Tribunal considers that the fact that the Applicant was charged with 10 counts in all could be categorised as frequent offending but, on balance, does not consider that it is of high frequency.

Whether the Applicant provided false or misleading information to the Department

1. There is evidence that the Applicant provided false or misleading information to the Department by not disclosing his prior 2004 criminal offending when he completed a passenger entry card in 2017 when returning from an overseas holiday. At the Tribunal hearing, the Applicant conceded that he did not disclose the 2004 offence but indicated that this was an oversight on his part, occurring as he had completed it at the end of an international flight with three young children. He further noted that he did in fact disclose the 2004 offence when he applied for a subclass 155 (Resident Return) visa earlier in 2017 in order to take the overseas trip, which he argued bolstered his assertion that he did not deliberately withhold this information when completing his passenger entry card later in 2017.
2. On balance, the Tribunal accepts the Applicant's explanation that he did not deliberately withhold the information about his 2004 offence when completing his incoming passenger card in 2017, and it draws no adverse inference from his failure to disclose this on the passenger entry card, given that the Tribunal accepts that he had disclosed it earlier that year when he applied for, and was granted, a subclass 155 (Resident Return) visa.

1. As noted by the sentencing Judge, the child sex offences of which the Applicant has been convicted consisted of two separate episodes. One set, involving three of the complainants, took place between March and November 2021 on multiple occasions, while the second set consisted of one incident occurring in March 2023 with another complainant. The concern this raises for the Tribunal was identified by Burnett J in his sentencing remarks: that is, the Applicant's second instance of offending occurred after he had been questioned by police and granted bailin March 2022 relation to the first offending. The Tribunal notes that the offences were described by the sentencing Judge as varying in severity, and that the March 2023 incident was not the most serious count. However, it is of concern to the Tribunal that the Applicant committed any other offence of a sexual nature involving a child after having been spoken to by police and granted bail in relation to earlier offences of the same nature. In the Tribunal's view, this indicates that the Applicant has offended or reoffended after being formally warned by the police. It could also be categorised as a trend of increasing seriousness. However, the Tribunal accepts that the Applicant did not reoffend after being formally warned, or since otherwise being made aware, in writing, about the consequences of further offending to his migration status.
2. Taken cumulatively, the above factors weigh somewhat in favour of not revoking the cancellation of the Applicant's visa.

1. The Direction specifies at cl 4(2) that serious conduct includes behaviour or conduct of concern that does not constitute any criminal offence.
2. The Tribunal has dealt with the Applicant's 2004 stealing offence above and considers that it does not fall within the terms of cl 4(2) given that it did constitute a criminal offence.
3. In relation to the Applicant's failure to declare the stealing offence on his 2017 incoming passenger card, it is unclear to the Tribunal whether this is a criminal offence or not. Assuming it is not, the Tribunal does not give it any weight in favour of not revoking the visa cancellation, as it is satisfied that the Applicant inadvertently omitted to mention it (given he did declare it shortly before his overseas trip in 2017, in order to apply for a subclass 155 (Resident Return) visa). It considers that this is not 'other serious conduct' for the purposes of consideration 8.1 and gives it neutral weight in its considerations.

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

1. The Tribunal must also consider the risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences. Clause 8.1.2 of the Direction states, in part:[70]

(1) In considering the need to protect the Australian community (including individuals, groups or institutions) from harm, decision-makers should have regard to the Government's view that the Australian community's tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. Some conduct and the harm that would be caused, if it were to be repeated, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable.

(2) In assessing the risk that may be posed by the non-citizen to the Australian community, decision-makers must have regard to, cumulatively:

a) the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct; and

b) the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account:

1. information and evidence on the risk of the non­citizen re-offending; and
2. evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since their most recent offence (noting that decisions should not be delayed in order for rehabilitative courses to be undertaken). ...

1. This requires an assessment of the nature of the harm should the Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct.[71] It also requires an assessment of the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in such conduct.[72] 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.[73]

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 consider the nature of the harm to individuals, or the Australian community, should the Applicant reoffend.[74]
2. The Tribunal considers that the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct is very serious, given his past offending was sexual offences involving children. This weighs heavily in favour of not revoking the cancellation of his subclass 155 (Resident Return) visa.

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

1. The Tribunal is to consider evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since the Applicant's most recent offence.
2. It is conceded that in this case, the Applicant has not been in the community since his arrest in 2023, following which he has been in prison and from early 2024, in immigration detention.
3. The Applicant provided oral evidence at hearing of having undertaken the following courses while on remand and/or in immigration detention:
   • drug and alcohol course (date(s) not specified); and
   • Fathers for Kids course (date(s) not specified); and
   • ongoing Bible study classes through Hillsong Church (twice weekly).
4. Reference was made in the Applicant's material to the fact that 'since his detainment, [the Applicant] has made significant efforts to address his past trauma and to better understand and manage his emotions. [He] has shown genuine repentance for his actions and is committed to making positive changes in is life. He has participated in rehabilitation programs and has expressed a strong desire to reintegrate into his family and community, where he can continue his journey of personal growth and hearing' (letter from Andrew Grant, Social Health Counsellor and Trauma Therapist, Institute for Urban Indigenous Health (IUIH), Caboolture, Queensland, 2 October 2024).[75]
5. At hearing, the Applicant gave evidence that he was certain that he would not reoffend, given the high price that his offending had cost him, and his family, including the threat of having to leave Australia, and the distress caused to his wife and children at this prospect. He expressed remorse for the effect his actions had had on the complainants. He also indicated that if he were released from immigration detention and permitted to remain in Australia, he would be required to complete the sex offenders' treatment course and would be assigned a psychologist to monitor him, as part of the sentence imposed on him by Burnett J on 18 January 2024, which he considered would contribute to minimising the risk of him reoffending.
6. The Applicant and his wife also told the Tribunal at hearing that they intended to move from Brisbane to Sydney, which would remove their family from the place in which the offending occurred and also place them closer to strong family support from the Applicant's side of the family, the majority of whom lived in Sydney. The Applicant and his wife said that they had agreed that the Applicant would no longer coach children's soccer and would have no other contact with children other than his own children and the children of his family members, and that he and his wife would not allow their children's friends to visit their family home.
7. In cross-examination, the Applicant conceded that while he had sometimes consumed alcohol at the times that he massaged the complainants, he was not drunk at these times and his offences were not related to excessive alcohol or drug consumption. He told the Tribunal that he had wanted to undertake the sexual offenders' treatment course while on remand but it was not available during that period, and it was not a course that he could undertake while in immigration detention. He said that he undertook the drug and alcohol course and the Fathers for Kids course for general self-improvement, and that he believed these courses, and his ongoing Bible study, had led to him becoming a better and more self-aware person, which also reduced the risk of him reoffending.
8. The question of the Applicant's remorse for his offending was explored at length at hearing and in the written submissions of the Applicant's agent and the Minister's representative.
9. In summary, the Applicant and his agent submitted to the Tribunal that the Applicant was extremely remorseful for the offending, but maintained that the offending was not deliberate, intentional or pre-meditated, suggesting rather that his massages involved accidental brushing of the breasts, inner thighs and/or vaginas of the complainants. The Applicant stated that he was not aware of any discomfort on the part of the complainants until his wife received a phone call from one of the parents of some of the complainants alleging that the Applicant had inappropriately touched them. The Applicant maintained that:
   • the offending occurred in the context of girls in his son's soccer team (of whom the Applicant was the coach) who were friends of his children and who spent time in his home, requesting massages of the kind that he provided to his own son to relieve muscle and joint pain following soccer matches;
   • the girls requested massages from him and did not want his wife to massage them;
   • he acceded because he did not think there was anything wrong with providing such massages, particularly since they took place in an open living area of his family home, in the presence of other people (his own children, his wife and on occasions, the parents of the complainants) and he was usually talking to others while providing the massages;
   • he was genuinely shocked when the allegations of him having inappropriately touched any of the complainants were made;
   • while initially he did not think that he had done anything wrong, he came to the view that it was wrong of him to have touched any child that was not his own child, and he acknowledged that his actions (although not deliberate) had caused distress to the complainants and their parents, which he deeply regretted;
   • he realised that he had to set firmer boundaries to avoid such situations occurring in future and he and his wife had agreed that they would do so. He was not a risk to any other children as he was a changed person as a result of this devastating experience and would never place himself in a similar situation in future, to avoid the emotional distress his own family and the complainants had experienced as a result of his actions. Moreover, he and his wife had agreed that he would have no contact with any children outside his own family, and they would move interstate; and
   • he would have to undertake the sex offenders' treatment program and have a psychologist assigned to him when and if released from immigration detention, as it was part of the conditions of his sentence, and he was willing to do so.
10. The Tribunal considers that there is an inherent tension between the Applicant's guilty pleas in relation to the child sex offences and his and his agent's submissions to the Department and to the Tribunal that he was genuinely remorseful but did not deliberately indecently touch the complainants. As best as the Tribunal could understand the Applicant's position, it appears that he accepts that he touched the complainants in the places alleged but that he maintains that this was accidental on his part. His remorse is for the fact that the complainants were affected by his actions, even though he states that he did not intend them to be and was not touching them for the purposes of sexual gratification. He also expressed considerable remorse for the upheaval caused to his own family when he was arrested and taken away from them and maintained that he would never put himself or them in a similar position if released from detention and allowed to stay in Australia. His evidence at the Tribunal hearing was that he pleaded guilty to the offences not because he agreed that he had deliberately touched the complainants indecently but because he did not wish them to be further traumatised by having to give evidence and be cross-examined at trial about these matters, and he considered that it was in everyone's best interests if he pleaded guilty in order to bring the criminal case to a conclusion as quickly as possible. The Tribunal accepts that the sentencing Judge gave him some credit for pleading guilty at a relatively early stage of the criminal proceedings.[76]
11. However, it remains troubling to the Tribunal that the Applicant simultaneously claims to be remorseful for his offending but does not accept that it was deliberately engaged in, despite pleading guilty to all counts. While the Tribunal accepts that people may have a range of reasons for pleading guilty to criminal charges (including sparing complainants, receiving a more lenient sentence, etc.), and may also have incentives to minimise or deny the actions that led to them being charged (such as not being able to admit guilt to oneself or to family members for fear of losing their support), it remains concerned about this in the Applicant's case, particularly when he has not undertaken any specific courses for sex offending and where there is no forensic evidence (for instance, from the corrections services or a private psychologist) about the risk of reoffending posed by the Applicant. As noted above, it is also of concern that the Applicant continued to engage in the offending conduct on at least one occasion after being spoken to by the police and granted bail in March 2022.
12. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant's evidence that to date, he has not been able to undertake the sex offenders' treatment course but would have to do so in future as part of his sentence conditions if his visa cancellation is revoked and he is released from immigration detention. It further accepts that he cannot afford to see a private psychologist in the meantime and that the counselling he was previously able to access through IUIH is not available to him in immigration detention. However, as per paragraph 8.1.2(2)(b)(ii) of Direction 110, the Tribunal must take into account evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of its decision, and there is little to nothing that the Applicant has undertaken that is specific to the offences for which he was convicted.
13. The Tribunal notes that as the Applicant remains in immigration detention at the time of the Tribunal's consideration, there is no time in the community post-offending to better assess in relation to his likelihood of reoffending. As noted above, the Applicant has been ordered to undertake the sex offenders' treatment program and (if ordered) undertake treatment with a psychologist, but it is clear that this has not, and will not, occur while he is in immigration detention. While this is not the fault of the Applicant, it is nevertheless the case that the Applicant has not to date undertaken targeted treatment for sexual offending. Given that the Tribunal can only consider treatment or rehabilitation undertaken as at the date of its consideration, the objective fact is that the Applicant has undertaken limited rehabilitation or treatment that is specifically relevant to his offending.
14. It therefore remains difficult for the Tribunal to assess the Applicant's risk of reoffending. Despite the Applicant's assertion that he would not reoffend under any circumstances (echoed by his family members), the Tribunal is not satisfied that he poses no risk, or even a low risk, of reoffending, given the dearth of objective, independent evidence on this issue. The Tribunal has regard to paragraph 8.1.2(1) of the Direction, which indicates that some conduct, and the harm that would be caused, if it were to be repeated, is so serious that any risk of harm that it may be repeated may be unacceptable. The Tribunal considers that child sex offences are in this category.
15. The Tribunal gives this factor weight in favour of not revoking the cancellation of the Applicant's subclass 155 (Resident Return) visa.

1. Clause 8.2 of the Direction 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. The Direction states that the Government has serious concerns about conferring on non-citizens who engage in family violence the privilege of entering or remaining in Australia. The Government's concerns are proportionate to the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the non-citizen.[77]
3. There is no indication that the Applicant has engaged in family violence as defined in the Direction, and thus the Tribunal gives this factor neutral weight.

The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia

1. This consideration requires the Tribunal to have regard to the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia. Clause 8.3 of the Direction provides that:

(1) Decision-makers must consider any impact of the decision on the non-citizen's immediate family members in Australia, where those family members are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely.

(2) Where consideration is being given to whether to cancel a non-citizen's visa or whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of their visa, the decision-maker must also consider the strength, nature and duration of any other ties that the non-citizen has to the Australian community. In doing so, decision-makers must have regard to:

a) how long the non-citizen has resided in Australia, including whether the non-citizen arrived as a young child, noting that:

1. less weight should be given where the non-citizen began offending soon after arriving in Australia; and

2. more weight should be given to time the non-citizen has spent contributing positively to the Australian community

b) the strength, duration and nature of any family or social links with Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia.

1. As noted above, the Applicant is married to an Australian citizen, Ms Kylie Mahon. The Applicant and Ms Mahon commenced a de facto relationship 20 years ago and married in 2016. As also noted above, they have three children, sons aged 17 and 15 and a daughter aged nine.
2. The Applicant and his wife gave evidence at hearing that before being jailed, the Applicant was the main breadwinner for the family, as the Applicant's wife had been caring for their children at home and working part time. The Applicant and his wife confirmed at hearing that the Applicant's wife had ceased work when the Applicant was taken into custody as she could not afford to pay for childcare in order to continue working. Ms Mahon indicated at hearing that she was now reliant on Centrelink payments, and that this had caused financial hardship to her and their children, such that she had on occasions had to utilise food bank charities. On a related note, the Applicant also indicated at hearing that he could not access treatment with a psychologist while in immigration detention as he could not afford to pay for a private psychologist, and he was no longer eligible for counselling through the IUIH.
3. Taking into account the oral evidence of the Applicant, Ms Mahon and her brother James Mahon at hearing, the Tribunal accepts that the Applicant's separation from Ms Mahon and incarceration has caused significant distress to Ms Mahon in the following ways:
   • she is suffering from social isolation and withdrawal, anxiety and depression (as noted by Ms Cheryl Golsinki of IUIH in a letter dated 24 May 2024[78] and also in the letter of Mr Andrew Grant, also of IUIH, in a letter dated 2 October 2024);[79]
   • she is experiencing financial hardship as a result of the loss of the Applicant, who was the main breadwinner for the family, and because she has had to give up her part time work to care for their children in his absence;
   • she and her children identify as First Nations Australians and the Applicant, although not indigenous himself, was accepted into this community in Brisbane. According to Andrew Grant of IUIH, '[t]he cultural significance of family unity in Indigenous communities cannot be overstated. Separating Indigenous families exacerbates intergenerational trauma, which has long-lasting effects on the mental and emotional well-being of all family members;'[80]

• Ms Mahon's parents are deceased and although her brother James Mahon provides support to her, she has been and is reliant on the Applicant for emotional and financial support, particularly throughout difficult times such as a previous period in which she suffered a miscarriage and her mother died; and

• Ms Mahon would not be in a position to relocate to Mauritius with her children if the Applicant is removed there and they would not be able to afford to visit him there. While it was acknowledged that Ms Mahon and their children are currently in regular contact with the Applicant in immigration detention via video and telephone calls, and could continue to communicate in this way if he were removed to Mauritius, it was submitted that this was no substitute for the Applicant returning to live in the family home and to provide practical, financial and emotional support in person.

1. The Tribunal accepts that the non-revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant's subclass 155 visa has had, and would continue to have, a considerable adverse effect on Ms Mahon, despite the counselling she is receiving through the IUIH.[81]
2. As noted above, the Applicant and Ms Mahon have three children: A (17 years old), D (15 years old) and E (9 years old). The available evidence indicates that the Applicant played an active and supportive role as their father prior to being taken into custody, and that since being in immigration detention, he is in daily contact with them via video calls several times a day (in the morning prior to school, after school and/or at dinner, and when the children go to bed in the evening).
3. Each of the children provided a written statement to the Tribunal outlining their distress at their separation from their father and their fear that he will be deported to Mauritius and permanently separated from them, destroying their family. The children express their love for their father, their deep sadness at being separated from him, and their concern about the effect it is having on them and their mother, Ms Mahon.[82]
4. At hearing, the Applicant and Ms Mahon gave evidence indicating that the children have been badly affected by what has occurred, and that they are no longer the happy children they once were but are exhibiting signs of sadness, confusion, anxiety and stress. In addition, school and medical records for A were provided that indicate that his school work and soccer participation has suffered greatly, that he has had conflict with and experienced bullying from other students while still attending the same school as some of the complainants, including receiving death threats and being called a 'pedo' in front of other students.'[83] A's GP states in a letter dated 26 June 2025 that he has 'developed significant symptoms of anxiety related to his father's absence. He also developed somatic symptoms, and suffered abdominal cramps, diarrhoea, bloody and mucoid stool. His ability to cope with physical symptoms was reduced by underlying anxiety, and his school attendance suffered.'[84] Ms Mahon gave evidence at hearing that she was forced to move A and D to a different school a considerably further distance away, and to homeschool E for several months before she could change her school as well, due to these incidents.
5. The Tribunal also has regard to the opinion of Andrew Grant, Social Health Counsellor and Trauma Therapist at IUIH, dated 6 June 2025, that 'Kylie's children have faced severe bullying and violent attacks, forcing them to change schools multiple times. This has caused significant emotional distress and instability in their young lives. The lack of familial support has compounded these difficulties, leaving Kylie to navigate these challenges alone. The stress of raising her family without the emotional and physical support of her husband, who is currently detained, has been overwhelming and heart-wrenching... The impact on... [the] children is particularly concerning. Children who experience trauma often face significant mental health challenges, including anxiety, depression, and PTSD. They may struggle with learning difficulties, lower academic performance and behavioural issues. The constant fear and instability can lead to difficulties in forming healthy relationships and trusting others. These effects can persist into adulthood, affecting their ability to lead fulfilling lives.'[85]
6. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant's children would be significantly affected if he is not able to return to live with the family in Australia. It considers that this weighs heavily in favour of revocation.
7. The Applicant gave evidence that his older daughters from his first marriage, Chloe and Chanel, are now both adults and his contact with them since he and their mother separated in 2004 has been limited, although the Tribunal accepts that this was not the Applicant's choice. It further accepts the Applicant's evidence at hearing that he resumed contact with his younger daughter, Chanel, who is currently aged 26, when she found out that he was in immigration detention, but this contact has become less frequent and more sporadic recently. The Applicant conceded that he had not played any role in the lives of his grandchildren (Chloe's children, B and C) to date, and that he does not presently have contact with Chloe (although she has apparently expressed an interest to her sister Chanel in having him contact her).
8. The Tribunal accepts that while the removal of the Applicant from Australia would deny Chloe and Chanel and Chloe's minor children a chance to (re)establish a relationship with the Applicant, they at present do not have a close or ongoing relationship with him and it is unclear whether they wish to.
9. The Tribunal gives their interests limited weight in favour of revocation.
10. In addition, the Applicant's three siblings and widowed mother reside in Sydney, Australia and are Australian citizens. The Applicant's brothers did not provide statements or evidence at hearing, but his sister, Ms Monia Alleaume, the Applicant's brother-in-law, Mr Matthew Albert, and the Applicant's mother, Mrs Josephe Maryse Albert, provided written statements expressing strong support for the Applicant being able to remain in Australia and asserting that he was a loved member of their extended family who deserved a second chance and who considered Australia to be his only home.[86] In addition, Ms Monia Alleaume gave evidence at the Tribunal hearing. She told the Tribunal that she was the primary carer for their mother, Mrs Josephe Maryse Albert, who lived with her in Sydney, and that this role was made more difficult without the Applicant, as the Applicant and his wife used to have Mrs Albert stay with them regularly in Brisbane to give Ms Alleaume a break from her caring responsibilities. Ms Alleaume emphasised the closeness of the family and the hole that the Applicant's detention had made in their family life. She also noted that their mother wished for nothing more before she died than to be able to be reunited with the Applicant. Ms Alleaume affirmed that if the Applicant were released from immigration detention and permitted to remain in Australia, he would have the full support of his immediate and extended family, especially if he and Ms Mahon and their children relocated to Sydney as planned.
11. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant also has Australian citizen adult nieces and nephews, several of whom provided written statements to the Tribunal, supporting the Applicant and noting his close relationship with them and with their minor children.[87] In addition, one of the Applicant's nieces, Ms Melanie Alleaume (who is also the Applicant's Goddaughter), gave evidence at hearing. She described to the Tribunal the close relationship that she and her brothers, Corey and Bradley (who are the children of the Applicant's sister Ms Monia Alleaume) had had growing up with their uncle, the Applicant. She noted that following the separation of her parents in 2010, the Applicant played a father figure role for her and her brothers and was always there for them during their teenage years to date. He had not met all of their young children in person as some had been born since he had been incarcerated (such as her daughter 'O' and Bradley's son L) but he had met them during video calls while he was in immigration detention. Ms Alleaume said that she and her siblings wanted the Applicant to have the opportunity to be a supportive family figure and role model to their children, as he had been to them when they were growing up.
12. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant's extended family wish the Applicant to remain in Australia.
13. If the Applicant were to be removed from Australia, the Tribunal considers that his family members in Australia would be able to maintain contact by such methods as telephone, messaging applications and video conferencing, methods which are commonly used now by family members in different countries or locations. However, the Tribunal accepts that this would not be the same as having the Applicant in Australia in person, especially for his own minor children.
14. The Tribunal accepts that it would cause significant emotional distress to the Applicant's Australian citizen close and extended family members if the Applicant's visa cancellation was not revoked, and he had to return to Mauritius. It also accepts that such a development would be likely to perpetuate the financial and emotional stress currently faced by the Applicant's wife and their children.
15. Overall, the Tribunal considers that the adverse effect on the Applicant's family members in Australia if the Applicant's visa is cancelled weighs strongly in favour of revoking the cancellation of his visa.

1. As noted above, the Applicant arrived in Australia in 1987 at the age of 14. He is now 52 years old and has not left Australia for any significant periods since his arrival (apart from an overseas family holiday in 2017).
2. As noted above, the Applicant completed secondary and some post-secondary vocational education in Australia, and worked in various fields here until 2023, including most recently as a fork lift driver but also as a cleaner and a carer in the NDIS.[88] The Applicant also provided evidence of voluntary activities, such as a five year term as a volunteer on the parents' committee of his children's then primary school and his soccer coaching.[89]
3. Prior to his incarceration, the Applicant lived in a rental property with Ms Mahon in Brisbane. He and Ms Mahon have indicated that once the lease ends, Ms Mahon will relocate to Sydney with their children and find a new rental property, and that if he is released and his visa restored, the Applicant will join them. They will be close to the Applicant's siblings, mother and nieces and nephews, all of whom will provide support to the Applicant and his immediate family.
4. The Tribunal acknowledges that the Applicant arrived in Australia as young teenager in 1987. It accepts that he has therefore spent his most of his formative years in Australia and has not maintained any ties to Mauritius or visited Mauritius since migrating to Australia. It further accepts that he no longer has any family support in Mauritius.
5. Overall, the Tribunal considers that the Applicant has been in Australia for a significant period (some 38 years), and that he has strong personal ties here. His family ties have been discussed above, and the Tribunal also notes that various friends have provided statements in support of the Applicant's character and supporting his being able to remain in Australia.[90]
6. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant's offending did not start soon after he moved to Australia, but rather, after he had been here approximately 30 years. However, it took place when he was an adult, and it is acknowledged that some of the offending occurred after he had been spoken to by police and granted bail in relation to the earlier offending.
7. On balance, the Tribunal considers that the majority of these factors weigh in favour of revoking the cancellation of the Applicant's subclass 155 visa.

Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision

1. Clause 8.4 of the Direction requires the Tribunal to consider the best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision. Under cl 8.4, the Tribunal must make a determination whether cancellation or refusal under s 501 of the Act 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.

1. It is not disputed that the Applicant played a parental role in his children A, D and E's lives from their birth to the time that he was arrested in 2023. The Tribunal accepts that both the Applicant and his wife considered that it was not in the children's interest to visit the Applicant regularly in jail or in immigration detention, and that since the Applicant was transferred to Villawood Detention Centre in Sydney, it has been logistically challenging for them to visit the Applicant from Brisbane. However, since being detained, the Applicant had maintained regular contact (several times a day) with his children by telephone or video call. The Applicant and Ms Mahon stated that they strongly wished the Applicant to continue to play an active role in the lives of their children as their father, and to be able to provide their children with financial and emotional support.
2. The Tribunal accepts that it is normally in the best interests of minor children to have ongoing contact with both their parents, where possible, and this has been recognised in Australian case law, such as Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs v RGKY [2022] FCAFC 177. While the Tribunal notes that the Applicant has not had in- person contact with his children since 2023 due to his arrest, jail and immigration detention, the children remain in Ms Mahon's care and (as noted above) are in regular contact with the Applicant via phone and video call. As also noted above, each of the children has provided a written statement pleading for their father to be allowed to come home.
3. In A's most recent statement, he states that the Applicant is his best friend and is always there for him, and that since the Applicant went away, he has lost all confidence in everything he does, especially his soccer, and has locked himself away from the world and everyone. He states, '[j]ust before my dad went away, I was selected for a high performance team for soccer, it was my dream to be a soccer player but when dad went away I went down hill and lost my position as I could not focus without having dad be there for me. Since dad has been gone I started suffering from depression and I was biting myself leaving bruises all over my arms, throughout this whole time of him being done I have made myself sick with worry which caused many hospital visits and a surgery as I didn't know at the time it was me suffering from mental health problems. I know lots of kids love there [sic] dads but my dad is like no other, he is the best and I am lucky he is my dad. Since we have found out a date for my dads [Tribunal] hearing I have had all different feelings about it, I am happy and excited that my dad could finally come back home to us and we can move on and be happy but then there is also that sick feeling in my stomach that he could be sent back overseas and there is not a thing I can do about it and it scares me that I might never get to see him again, as video calls are not the same thing as having my father home with us and doing things we used to do as a family. This is my final year of school and to have my dad there standing next to my mum when I graduate and to see them both proud of me means everything to me. Please give my dad his second chance.'[91]
4. As noted above, A's GP provided a letter dated 27 June 2025 which confirms that A has suffered mental and physical problems attributable to the anxiety about his family situation. She states that '[A] is a bright, capable, sensitive young man, and felt the impact of his father's absence, as well as suffering anxiety fearing the possibility of his father being deported. [A] attended multiple medical appointments and his physical symptoms have improved with time. He is still suffering an element of anxiety, with features of an adjustment disorder, and is requiring supportive counselling. He remains concerned about the outcome of his father's situation, and his mental health is strongly influenced by these circumstances.'[92]
5. There are no specific medical or psychological reports relating to D or E. However, their statements are similar to their brother's statement. In his statement, D states that his father would do anything for him and that he (D) would feel sad all the time if his father moved to Mauritius. He states that he just wants his father home so that they can be a family again.[93] In her statement, E states that she loves her father very much and hopes that he will be home soon because it is hard for Ms Mahon because she cannot get food for them, and they are all sad without the Applicant and love him.[94]
6. As noted above at paragraph 143, Ms Mahon's social worker has also noted that separation from their father has had a profound and adverse effect on all of the children and that a permanent separation would likely cause ongoing problems, continuing into adulthood.
7. The Tribunal notes that subparagraph 8.4(4)(a) of the Direction indicates that less weight should generally be given where the relationship is non-parental, and/or there is no existing relationship, and/or there have been long periods of absence, or limited meaningful contact (including whether an existing Court order restricts contact). It further notes that the Applicant has had a reasonably significant period of physical absence in his minor children's life (approximately two and a half years at the time of the Tribunal's decision) and the primary parental role for the children is currently played by their mother, Ms Mahon, although the Applicant is in regular telephone and video contact.
8. Nevertheless, the Tribunal accepts that the Applicant's absence has adversely affected his minor children. From the evidence of the Applicant, his wife and his sister, and his brother-in-law, the Tribunal accepts that the Applicant has had a close relationship with his minor children and, until his arrest and incarceration, took an active role in their care even while working as the main breadwinner for the family. The Applicant's wife, brother-in-law and sister gave detailed evidence at hearing about the care and support that the Applicant provided to his children (including virtually from detention), and the financial and psychological strain his absence had put on Ms Mahon in trying to fulfil both parental roles.
9. Given the Applicant's minor children's ages, the Tribunal considers that there is scope for the Applicant to re-establish an active parental role in his life prior to them turning 18. This was strongly supported by Ms Mahon, the Applicant's sister and niece, and his brother-in-law, all of whom saw the Applicant's role in his minor children's life as crucial to their development, both emotionally and financially (a view supported by the most recent IUIH report of 6 June 2025).[95]
10. The Tribunal has considered the actual and potential impact on the Applicant's children of the Applicant's prior offending. It notes that the older children, D and (in particular) A, experienced hostility and threats at their former school, but that this has ceased as they have moved schools. The Tribunal also notes that the whole family intends to move from Brisbane to Sydney, which would minimise the chances of reprisals against the children by anyone who was the subject of, or aware of, the Applicant's offending. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to indicate that the Applicant is prevented from having contact with his minor children. It also appears that there is no current involvement by Child Protective Services (CPS) in Queensland in the family's case. The Applicant's evidence at hearing was that CPS did assess the children when he was first arrested in 2022 but did not have concerns about him remaining in the family home. While it is not 100% clear that the Applicant would be assessed as suitable to care for his minor children in the event that he was released from immigration detention and allowed to remain in Australia, the Tribunal notes that there is no clear evidence that the Applicant would be regarded by CPS as unsuitable to care for his children. The Tribunal considers that even if the Applicant were allowed supervised contact with his minor children (as opposed to living with them), this would still be beneficial to them and to their mother.
11. The Tribunal has also had regard to the possibility that Ms Mahon would take her children to Mauritius to join her husband if the Applicant's visa cancellation is not revoked, and considers that this would not be in the children's interest. It accepts that the Applicant's children, who are not Mauritian citizens, would struggle to establish themselves there, given they have lived in Australia all their lives, are presently in the Australian education system and have a large extended family in Australia, while they would have no other family besides their parents in Mauritius. In light of this, the Tribunal considers that any such relocation would be developmentally and psychologically adverse and distressing to the Applicant's minor children.
12. The Tribunal finds that it would be in the best interests of the Applicant's minor children that the Applicant's visa not be cancelled so that he has the opportunity to re-establish his in-person relationship with them, for whom he has been their only father figure for all of their lives. Moreover, the Tribunal considers that the right to have a relationship with their father attaches to the Applicant's minor children, and not the Applicant.
13. The Tribunal gives this factor significant weight in favour of revocation of the cancellation decision.

1. In addition to his minor children from his marriage to Ms Mahon, the Applicant also has two minor granddaughters (B and C) in Australia, who are the children of his older daughter Chloe from his first marriage. B is aged approximately four years old while C is about one year old. It was accepted that they live with Chloe, who does not presently have contact with the Applicant. While it was submitted that the Applicant might be able to establish a relationship with his granddaughters, no written statements of support were provided from his daughter Chloe to this effect. It is apparent that the Applicant does not play a parental role in their lives.
2. The Tribunal therefore gives their interests a little weight in favour of revocation.

Applicant's nieces and nephews and their children

1. It was not disputed that the Applicant has several adult nieces and nephews in Australia, most of whom have minor children. These minor children are:
   • G (aged 13), P (aged 10), Q (aged eight) and J (aged five) - children of the Applicant's adult niece Debbie;
   • N (aged nine) and K (aged eight) - children of the Applicant's adult niece Cassandra;
   • O (aged approximately four months) - daughter of the Applicant's adult niece and God-daughter Melanie;
   • L (aged approximately two months) - son of the Applicant's adult nephew Bradley;
   • M (aged two) and R (aged one) - children of the Applicant's adult nephew Cory.
2. The Applicant's evidence at hearing was that he had a close family relationship as a great uncle with those of the above children who were born before he was convicted and incarcerated; particularly with G and P, who played soccer and attended school with the Applicant's children before the latter changed schools, and with N, who has autism and a cleft palate and who was close in age to the Applicant's daughter E and who spent a lot of time with her mother with the Applicant and his family when they all lived in Brisbane. In relation to O, L, M and R, it was the evidence of the Applicant and Ms Melanie Alleaume at hearing that the Applicant had met them through video calls while the Applicant was in immigration detention and that their respective parents wished the Applicant to play a role in the children's lives as part of their close, extended family, as he had done with his nieces and nephews.
3. While the above great nieces and nephews are minors, there is no indication that the Applicant plays, or has played, a parental role in their lives. They all have parents of their own, albeit Debbie is a single parent.
4. While it may be assumed that these relatives may be distressed to some degree if the Applicant were to have to leave Australia, no evidence was presented to suggest that these minor children would be significantly adversely affected, nor that they would be unable to maintain contact with the Applicant via telephone, social media and so on.
5. Accordingly, the Tribunal gives this factor a little weight in favour of revoking the cancellation of the Applicant's subclass 155 visa.

1. The fifth primary consideration requires the Tribunal to weigh the expectations of the Australian community. Clause 8.5(1) of the Direction provides that the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. The Direction goes on to state that 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. Clause 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. This includes an expectation that a visa should be cancelled if they raise serious character concerns because of acts of family violence.[96]
3. Clause 8.5(3) of the Direction further confirms that the stated expectations apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
4. 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.[97]
5. In weighing this consideration, the Tribunal is guided by the principles in cl 5.2 of the Direction. In applying these principles, and given the fact that the Applicant's crime involved child sex offences, the Tribunal considers that the Australian community would expect the Applicant's visa to be cancelled, and finds this consideration weighs in favour of exercising the discretion not to revoke the cancellation of the visa.

(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;

c) impact on Australian business interests.

Legal consequences of decision under section 501 or 501CA

1. The Tribunal is required to consider the legal consequences of a decision on a non-citizen, including having regard to Australia's non-refoulement obligations in respect of unlawful non-citizens.[98]
2. There are a range of legal consequences of a decision to cancel 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;[99]
   • refusal of other visa applications and cancellation of other visas;[100]
   • a prohibition on applying for other visas;[101] and
   • periods of exclusion and special return criteria may apply.[102]
3. Generally, if a visa is cancelled, the visa applicant becomes an unlawful non-citizen 28 days after being notified of the decision, unless he or she has been granted another visa. Under s 189 of the Act, the Applicant must be detained and removed as soon as reasonably practicable under s 198 if he becomes an unlawful non-citizen.[103]
4. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant would normally be subject to removal as soon as practicable under s 198, and to be detained under s 189 until then. However, the Applicant is currently in immigration detention.
5. As a result of the High Court of Australia case of NZYQ v MICMA [2023] HCA 37, the Applicant cannot be detained where there is 'no real prospect of removal from Australia becoming practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future at the time of the Tribunal's decision' (at [54]).
6. However, there is no indication that this would be the case for the Applicant. He remains a Mauritian national and - subject to him having or applying for a valid Mauritian passport - he could be removed to Mauritius. The Tribunal notes that although the Applicant's sister Ms Monia Alleaume claimed in a written statement that the family migrated to Australia at least in part because they faced hardship and racism due to a class system based on skin colour and that even their lighter skinned relatives treated them differently,[104] the Applicant himself has not identified any risk of persecution or targeted harm if he were to now return to Mauritius. Nor is he the subject of a protection finding in relation to that country.
7. Accordingly, it appears that the Applicant would be granted a Bridging Visa (Removal) ('BVR') upon release from jail to cover the period during which his removal to Mauritius is facilitated, which might be subject to a range of conditions, including the requirement to wear a monitoring ankle bracelet. Typically, a BVR requires its holder to report daily to the Department by telephone, notify of changes to his address, employment and of any material changes to his circumstances, may restrict his employment in certain sectors and/or with certain chemicals, and requires him to (in summary) cooperate with any efforts by the Australian government to remove him from Australia.
8. At hearing and in his pre-hearing submissions, the Applicant and his Australian family members expressed concern that if he were removed to Mauritius, he would struggle to adjust as he has no assets or employment there and it is now over 38 years since he lived there. However, the Tribunal notes that the Applicant speaks the official language (English), has various post-secondary qualifications and a varied work history in Australia, albeit he has never worked in Mauritius.
9. The Tribunal accepts that affirming the decision not to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant's visa will result in his being removed to Mauritius at some time shortly after his release from immigration detention. The Tribunal further accepts that this prospect would have an adverse psychological effect on the Applicant. The Tribunal is also satisfied that such an outcome would have an adverse effect on the Applicant's Australian family members, in the context where the family as a whole has already experienced considerable stress as a result of the Applicant's criminal case and the resulting separation from him.
10. Another adverse consequence of the cancellation not being revoked is that there are significant restrictions on the Applicant being able to apply for another visa. As his subclass 155 (Resident Return) visa has been cancelled, he is now subject to s 501E(1) of the Act and would not be able to apply for another visa while in the migration zone (Australia) other than a protection visa or a bridging visa R pursuant to s 501E(2)(a) - (b) and r 2.12AA.
11. These factors weigh in favour of revoking the cancellation of the Applicant's subclass 155 (Resident Return) visa.
12. The Tribunal acknowledges that the potential loss of Australian permanent residence is the loss of a valuable right, not least to the Applicant's sense of security and certainty.
13. Accordingly, and on balance, the Tribunal considers that the legal effects of cancelling the visa on the Applicant weigh in favour of revoking the cancellation of his subclass 155 (Resident Return) visa.

1. Clause 9.2 of the Direction provides that, taking into account the matters identified in sub-clauses 9.2(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Direction, the Tribunal must consider the extent to which the Applicant would face an impediment or impediments in establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country. The matters identified under sub-clauses 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. As noted above, the Tribunal accepts that, although he is a middle-aged man currently in reasonable physical health, the Applicant would have no family support or obvious means of support from other sources (including employment, at least initially) if removed Mauritius. While the Applicant speaks English, and the official language of Mauritius is English, it was argued by the Applicant's representative that French and/or Creole is widely spoken, and the Tribunal accepts that the Applicant has not maintained fluency in these languages as an adult.
3. Although the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant is currently in reasonable physical health, it accepts, from his evidence at hearing and from a Department of Home Affairs file note of 4 February 2025, that he suffers from some osteoarthritis in his spine and limbs for which he takes Panadol-Osteo, and he also has a blood condition where he has an excess of protein in his blood. The latter condition requires annual review by a haematologist and a rheumatologist and regular blood tests as it is a condition that, in about 1% of people with it, may develop into a blood cancer such as multiple myeloma.[105] It is not disputed that the Applicant has not to date developed a blood cancer of any kind.
4. The Applicant and his agent submitted that the health system in Mauritius was inferior to Australia and that the Applicant might not be able to obtain the treatment that he receives in Australia for his conditions, and/or that if he did develop a blood cancer, he would be more at risk than if he remained in Australia. In support of this, the Applicant and his agent provided a statement dated 23 July 2025 from a family acquaintance, Ms Dolly Labonne, who stated that her mother, who resided in Mauritius, was diagnosed with a neuroendocrine tumour on her pancreas in early 2022, and that Ms Labonne brought her mother to Australia for treatment to access better medical treatment, as her mother required ongoing monitoring and specialised treatment. Ms Labonne asserts that 'unfortunately, adequate medical facilities and expertise to manage her condition are really limited in Mauritius... [and] her health has been progressively declining as a result of limited health care in Mauritius.'[106]
5. In contrast, the Respondent's representative argued that there was no reason to think that the health care system in Mauritius would be inadequate to manage the Applicant's existing conditions, and that it was speculative to assume he might develop multiple myeloma or another blood cancer, and that therefore, this factor was neutral in relation to whether to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant's visa.
6. The Tribunal considers that there is no clear evidence that indicates that the Applicant's existing medical needs could not be treated adequately in Mauritius, including monitoring by a haematologist and a rheumatologist. The Tribunal acknowledges that there is a 1% chance that the Applicant may develop a blood cancer due to his existing blood condition. The Tribunal considers that this chance is remote, and that if he were to do so, it appears treatment would be available in Mauritius, although the Tribunal acknowledges that it might have to be privately paid for and/or might not be of the same standard as Australia. However, there is no clear evidence to suggest that treatment would be unavailable or substandard. The Tribunal notes Ms Labonne's statement but considers it to be anecdotal in nature, given it relates to a relative suffering from a different condition to the Applicant, and it therefore gives it little weight in assessing the level of health care that the Applicant would be able to access in Mauritius for his conditions.
7. Overall, the Tribunal therefore gives this factor as a whole some weight in favour of not revoking the cancellation of the Applicant's subclass 155 visa.

(1) Decision-makers must consider any impact on Australian business interests if the non-citizen is not allowed to enter or remain in Australia, noting that an employment link would generally only be given weight where the decision under section 501 or 501CA would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project, or delivery of an important service in Australia.

1. The Tribunal notes that Direction 110 indicates that this factor is generally only given weight where a decision would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project or important service in Australia. It was conceded by the Applicant and his representative that this was not the case with his situation.
2. Accordingly, the Tribunal considers that this carries neutral weight.

1. The Applicant does not pass the character test under s 501 of the Act, and the Tribunal must consider whether the mandatory cancellation of his subclass 155 (Resident Return) visa should be revoked, having regard to the primary and other considerations in the Direction.
2. Clause 7 of the Direction sets out the way in which the relevant considerations are to be taken into account and weighed.
3. There has been extensive judicial consideration on the exercise of balancing and weighing considerations contained in the relevant Ministerial Directions (considering a number of Ministerial Directions preceding the Direction).[107]
4. The Full Court of the Federal Court in CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs ('CRNL') said '[t]he real burden of the task to be undertaken by a decision-maker who must comply with the Direction [the precursor Direction 90] is to bring together the considerations as part of a single evaluation of their relative significance thereby weighing them all together.'[108]
5. In determining the weight to be applied to each consideration, the Tribunal has considered the primary and other considerations and weighed them in light of the evidence and findings using the guidance provided by the Direction.
6. Greater weight must generally be given to the protection of the Australian community than other primary considerations.[109] Greater weight will also generally be given to primary considerations. In examining what this requires, the Full Court in CRNL stated that this means greater weight will be given unless there is some reason why that general approach should not be adopted.[110]
7. In the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal considers that the general approach should be adopted that greater weight is given to the protection of the Australian community, and to the other primary considerations. The fact that the Applicant's conduct constituted a serious criminal offence, and the expectations of the Australian community, weigh in favour of not revoking the cancellation of the visa. Conversely, the Applicant's ties to Australia carry strong weight in favour of revoking the cancellation of the visa. The best interests of minor children (principally the Applicant's own three minor children) also, in the Tribunal's view, carry very strong weight in favour of revoking the visa cancellation in this case. Of the other considerations, the legal consequences of the decision and the extent of the impediments to the Applicant were he to be removed to Mauritius carry moderate weight in favour of revoking the cancellation of his visa.
8. In relation to the primary consideration of the protection of the Australian community, the Tribunal considers that despite the assertions of the Applicant and his family members and friends, it cannot be said that the Applicant presents no or a very low risk of reoffending.
9. The Applicant has the strong support of his family in Australia. After careful consideration and on balance, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant is genuinely remorseful for his offending and will take steps to minimise his chances of reoffending, not least because he does not wish to return to jail or immigration detention, and does not wish to cause his family members any further distress, wishes to resume a spousal relationship with his wife and a parental relationship with his children, and that he does not wish to cause distress to any other children as he now accepts that he has done with the complainants. The Tribunal considers that these do constitute protective factors against the possibility of the Applicant reoffending. This is so even though some of these factors existed at the time that the Applicant offended.
10. The Tribunal concludes that while the primary considerations of protection of the Australian community and the expectations of the Australian community weigh in favour of not revoking the visa cancellation, in this case they are outweighed by the primary considerations in favour of revoking the cancellation; namely, the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia, and in particular, the best interests of the Applicant's minor children. Also weighing in favour of revoking the cancellation of the visa are the non-primary considerations of the legal consequences of the decision and the extent of impediments if the Applicant is removed from Australia.
11. Although the Tribunal has given the consideration of the protection of the Australian community greater weight than the other primary considerations, it has concluded that the combined weight of the considerations that weigh in favour of revoking the cancellation of the Applicant's subclass 155 visa outweigh those in favour of cancelling the visa. The Tribunal considers that the primary considerations of the best interests of the Applicant's minor children, along with the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's ties, together with consideration of the legal consequences of the decision, cumulatively weigh in favour of exercising the discretion to revoke the cancellation of the visa.

1. Pursuant to section 105(c) of the ART Act 2024 (Cth), the Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision that the cancellation of the Applicant's Class BB subclass 155 (Resident Return) visa is revoked under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

Representative for the Applicant: Mr Mukesh Chand, Shiva's Migration Services

Representative for the Respondent: Mr Jonathan Djasmeini, Minter Ellison

[15] Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Cth), Direction no. 110 - Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation under section 501CA (dated 7 June 2024) cl 5.2 ('Direction 110').

[70] See also Direction 110, cl 8.1(2)(b).

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

[82] Ibid, statements of A, D and E at pages HB129 - 132.

[83] Ibid, pages HB 179 - 181, HB 183, HB 186, HB 189, HB 190, HB 192.

[90] Ibid, pages HB 134, HB 260 - 262, HB 288 - 290.

[99] Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 189, 196, 197C, 198.

[100] Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 501F.

[101] Ibid s 501E.

[102] Ibid s 503, special return criteria (SRC) 5001.

[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].

[107] See Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 594; Minister for Home Affairs v HSKJ [2018] FCAFC 217; (2018) 266 FCR 591.

[108] [2023] FCAFC 138, [28].