1. The Tribunal is bound by s 499(2A) to comply with any directions made under the Migration Act. In this case, Direction No. 110 - Migration Act 1958 - Direction under section 499: Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (the Direction) has application.[4]
2. For the purposes of deciding whether to refuse a non-citizen's visa or whether or not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen's visa, paragraph 5.2 of the Direction contains several principles that must inform a decision-maker's application of the Primary and Other Considerations identified in Part 2 where relevant to the decision.
3. The principles that are found in paragraph 5.2 of the Direction are as follows:

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

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

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

(4) The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they engaged in conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, that raises serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measureable 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 noncitizen does not pose a measureable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.

1. Informed by the principles in paragraph 5.2 above, I must take into account the primary and other considerations in the Direction.
2. The primary considerations are:[5]

(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;

1. The primary consideration of the protection of the Australian community is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations.[7]

Protection of the Australian community - 8.1 of Direction 110

1. When considering the protection of the Australian community, I have regard to the principle that the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity. 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.[8] As required by paragraph 8.1(2) of the Direction, I give consideration below to:

(a) the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's conduct to date; and

(b) the risk to the Australian community, should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.

The nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's conduct - 8.1.1 of Direction 110

1. When considering the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct, I take into account his criminal activity and other serious conduct.
2. The offending involved the Applicant importing child abuse material into Australia on three occasions in August, September and December 2023. The offending material was contained on DVDs and his iPad Pro. It included videos classified as category one child abuse material, an example of which is a video depicting a young female aged between 11 and 12 engaged in sexual acts with another female aged between 12 and 14.
3. The Applicant failed to declare the child pornography discovered on the iPad brought into Australia on 8 December 2023.
4. The sentencing judge stated that the Applicant's offending was not isolated offending, but three separate importations of child abuse material over a period of three and a half months. Her honour noted that those who import child abuse material "play a role in the corruption and exploitation of real children involved in the creation of these depraved images and videos".[9]
5. Crimes of a sexual nature involving children are viewed very seriously by the Australian government and community.[10] The sentence of imprisonment reflects the seriousness of the offending. The offending involved repeated incidents, although I accept that the importation took place over a limited period and there was no prior offending. I also accept that since being arrested in January 2024, the Applicant has not re-offended.
6. I conclude as to the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct that it was very serious. As the sentencing Judge said, "the degrading and depraved nature of the sexual activity depicted in the videos of pre-pubescent children is an indicator of the gravity of the offending".[11] It is a very significant factor in terms of whether I am satisfied that there is 'another reason' to set aside the non-revocation decision.

The risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct - 8.1.2 of Direction 110

1. In considering the need to protect the Australian community from harm, I 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 repeated, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable.[12] As required by paragraph 8.1.2(2) of the Direction, I also 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:

(i) information and evidence on the risk of the non- citizen re-offending; and

(ii) 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. In terms of measuring the risk to the Australian community, guidance can be found in the decision of Mortimer J (as she then was) in Tanielu v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection.[13] Her Honour said that, to determine an unacceptable risk, one has to evaluate what the consequences of reoffending are as well as the likelihood of the person engaging in that conduct in the future.

Nature of harm if further criminal or other serious conduct - 8.1.2(2)(a) of Direction 110

1. If the Applicant were to engage in further similar criminal offending, the nature of the harm would be very serious because of the impact of child pornography on those involved. I repeat the remarks of the sentencing Judge with which I agree that those who import child abuse material "play a role in the corruption and exploitation of real children involved in the creation of these depraved images and videos". I also agree with the sentencing judge who said with respect to cartoon material that "such material has the effect of desensitising those involved, normalising exploitative sexual offending against children and encourages reciprocal communications."[14]

Likelihood of further criminal or other serious conduct - 8.1.2(2)(b) of Direction 110

1. The Applicant has expressed remorse for his offending and says that he will not re-offend. During his time in prison he missed his wife and daughter and developed a realisation that he would miss out seeing his daughter grow up if he further offended. He was well behaved in prison and engaged in activities to transform himself in a positive way. He accepts that he did not appreciate the seriousness of his offending at the time but he now has a better understanding and regrets what he did. He decided to attend psychology sessions which have helped him to understand the harm that child pornography causes to children, including animated child pornography. Through his sessions with the psychologist from January 2024 he has developed a behavioural plan which includes targeting risk factors, improving coping strategies and enhancing overall mental well-being. He has learnt to have healthy coping mechanisms for stress and boredom and he does not rely on pornography in the way that he used to.
2. The sentencing Judge noted the remorse inherent in his guilty plea and said that he had demonstrated contrition by seeking to address his offending through visits to a psychologist. The Applicant cooperated with the authorities when his home was searched on 11 January 2024, but he downplayed the nature of child abuse material which he imported stating they were limited to cartoon or cosplay material and denied purchasing any DVDs from the website. This was clearly false. In September 2024 when being assessed by the psychologist, Ms Cidoni, he repeated his assertion that the images he possessed were digital cartoon images and said that he believed possessing such images was legal in China and did not understand that this was not a case in Australia. After a further assessment by Ms Cidoni, she confirmed that the Applicant was not forthcoming in his initial assessment consistent with the untruthful responses he provided to officers when first interviewed in January 2024.
3. The Applicant was similarly reticent to discuss the full nature of his offending with his treating psychologist, Mr Xie, initially telling him that his offending related to the use of cartoon images only and denying any interest in pornographic material featuring real children. It was only later when he was reassessed by Ms Cidoni that he acknowledged receiving and viewing a broader range of child abuse material including real children and admitted to experiencing arousal from those images.
4. With respect to rehabilitation, Ms Cidoni said in her September 2024 report that his prospects are favourable because:

[62] ...His willingness to attend therapy, his demonstrated insight into his actions, and his low risk of reoffending all indicate positive rehabilitation potential. Continued psychological support focusing on anxiety, addressing trauma, and improving impulse control is important. His stable personal life, commitment to rehabilitation, lack of prior criminal behaviour further supports his prospects for recovery.[15]

[57] He demonstrated sustained engagement in psychological treatment across the first episode of care and later re-engaged in treatment while in immigration detention. ... Since that time, he has demonstrated improved insight into the emotional, situational, and behavioural factors contributing to his offending, along with behavioural stability during custody and immigration detention and continued adherence to relapse prevention strategies.[16]

1. It is a positive factor that if the Applicant is released he will be living in a stable environment with support from his wife and good prospects of employment. The written behavioural plan for his future as developed in consultation with Mr Xie is a further positive factor in terms of risk of re-offending.
2. In a report dated 21 November 2024,[17] Mr Xie states that the Applicant admitted purchasing the DVDs out of curiosity which he "skimmed through" and then placed away. Mr Xie was of the opinion that the Applicant minimised his offending to a degree.
3. The sentencing judge on 9 December 2024 concluded that the Applicant had reasonably favourable prospects of rehabilitation but she qualified that conclusion by saying:[18]

I consider that your insight into the seriousness of your offending, and the harm caused by such conduct, is only now evolving. You are yet to fully comprehend and appreciate the link between the viewing of "real" child abuse material and sexual abuse of the actual children are depicted in those images and videos. Undoubtedly, your future prospects of rehabilitation will be enhanced by engagement in ongoing specialist sex offender treatment.

1. The Applicant stated in his written statement:[19]

[39] I acknowledge that when I committed the offences, I was not mindful of the local laws in Australia regarding child pornography. At the time, I had bought the DVDs from the website Mandarake which also sold Gundam models, toys, music DVDs and other legal items. I used the website to purchase many items. I genuinely thought all items I purchased from that site would have been legal. I truly did not appreciate the seriousness at the time. ...

[40]I feel I was very stupid at the time that I did the online purchase of DVDs. I thought the covers were fake. I assumed the content would involve younger people, I did not think there would really be minors. If I had known it involved real children, I wouldn't have purchased them. I have my own child. ...

[42] After September 2023, since reviewing the DVD I received from Mandarake, I was not really comfortable with it, so I did not purchase any more similar materials even though I continued to use Mandarake to purchase other items.

1. In his oral evidence, the Applicant said that the reason he purchased the child abuse material was because he was bored and because he trusted the Mandarake website to not sell anything illegal. Under cross examination he said that he thought he was purchasing adult pornography and that if he had known it was child pornography he would not have bought them.
2. The Applicant said with respect to the 'Yousei Complete' DVD received by him that he only skimmed its contents and stopped watching it as soon as he realised it contained child pornography. He then put the DVD away. He did not find the child abuse material arousing and he felt uncomfortable about it.
3. With respect to the Mandarake DVDs that were intercepted, the Applicant said that he thought he was purchasing material from a well-known organisation which would not sell anything illegal. When challenged under cross examination, he said that the online promotional material included the genitalia of what appeared to be a young woman. He did not recall if there was a description of what he was buying but he thought it was adult pornography.
4. It was noted by the sentencing judge that the covers of two DVD's imported on 27 August 2023 readily reveal their content as child abuse material. When challenged about the sentencing judge's statement that the DVD covers revealed that there was child abuse material, he said that he thought the covers of the DVD might be deceptive which is consistent with his written statement where he said that he thought the covers were fake. This suggests that the Applicant must have seen a depiction of the covers of the DVDs when he was purchasing them online, although it is unclear whether the Applicant's reference to DVD covers was a reference to Mandarake or 'Yousei Complete'.
5. I find it hard to believe that the Applicant was not aware that he was buying child pornography. There are three separate incidents of offending involving child pornography. I consider it very unlikely that he was not aware that he was purchasing child pornography or downloading it onto his iPad on three separate occasions.
6. I note that in the Applicant's most recent written statement of 2 December 2025,[20] he appears to continue to downplay the seriousness of his offending by not fully describing the background of the offending as follows:

[27] On 27 August 2023, an international consignment addressed to me as "Issac Wang" at my address was examined by Customs officers. The consignment had been sent from a company called "Mandarake", a Japanese retail business selling a range of products including anime and manga related items, CDs and DVDs. The consignment had two DVDs, and was found to contain child abuse material ...

1. It is concerning the Applicant continues to not accept full responsibility for the child pornography. Even under re-examination from his own counsel, the Applicant was very evasive when asked what it was from the online material that caused him to purchase the DVDs from Mandarake. In response to that question the Applicant said that he blindly trusted the website and did not exercise caution and had been under stress and was not communicating with his wife. The Applicant's failure to admit that he deliberately and intentionally purchased and obtained child pornography provides reason to doubt that he has adequate insight into his offending and that his remorse is genuine.
2. The suggestion that the Applicant did not know that the importations contained child abuse material should be rejected. I reject his evidence that he thought the covers were fake or deceiving. The Applicant lied to the police when interviewed in January 2024 and he has continued to not be fully candid in his December 2025 statement and in his evidence before the Tribunal. He showed himself to be untruthful to his psychologists. The Applicant's attempts to downplay his conduct and to lay the blame on the website is concerning. It suggests that he has not accepted full responsibility for his conduct. The Applicant had an opportunity to honestly articulate the circumstances of his offending in his written statement of 2 December 2025 and before the Tribunal, but he failed to do so.
3. Ms Cidoni maintained in her oral evidence her opinion expressed in her December 2025 report that the Applicant posed a low risk of further similar offending. She said that his initial failure to disclose the presence of real child pornography (as opposed to cartoons) could be explained by cultural and other factors including shame. She said it is not unusual and did not impact her assessment that the likelihood of re-offending was low. She referred to the positive factors of his early and continuing engagement with his treating psychologist, his support from his wife and the incentive of not reoffending so he can remain with his daughter, his absence of any lapses and his behavioural stability in custody and detention. I note that the Applicant's treating psychologist, Dr Xie agrees that his likelihood of reoffending is low and that he identified protective factors including ongoing prosocial engagement, maintenance of family connection, and continued commitment to relapse prevention strategies.
4. Despite my concerns about the Applicant's failure to be fully candid and to accept responsibility for purchasing and obtaining child pornography, I am willing to accept the assessment of both psychologists that the Applicant's risk of further reoffending is low.

Conclusion as to protection of the Australian community - 8.1 of Direction 110

1. There is both a backward- and forward-looking assessment to be made when considering the protection of the Australian community. It requires a consideration of the Applicant's past conduct, namely his importation of child pornography, and a consideration of the risk of further offending. Further, it is the Government's view expressed in paragraph 8.1.2(1) of the Direction that the Australian community's tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. I believe that this is a case where the Applicant's conduct and the harm that would be caused, if it were to be repeated, is very serious. The gravity of the offending is such that even a low risk of further offending is unacceptable. I conclude that the protection of the Australian community is a factor that weighs very heavily against revocation of the cancellation decision.

1. The Applicant has not committed any acts of family violence. This factor is neutral.

Strength, Nature and Duration of Ties to Australia - 8.3 of Direction 110

1. This primary consideration provides at paragraph 8.3 of Direction 110:

(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:

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 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. If the Applicant were removed to China, it would have a significant negative impact upon his father, his wife and his child. If the cancellation decision is not revoked and the Applicant is not returned to the Australian community then the Applicant will be separated from his family which will have devastating consequences for him and his family members in Australia.
2. His wife gave written and oral evidence to the Tribunal in support of the Applicant. She is under immense stress from having to work plus care for their daughter. Without the Applicant's wage she is facing financial issues because of day-to-day expenses which resulted in the family house being sold. She loves and misses her husband and wants him to return home. If he does not, she will continue to suffer and struggle financially and emotionally. The impact on her of non-revocation will be very significant. The daughter would also suffer and I consider her interests under paragraph 8.4 of the Direction.
3. The Applicant's father would also be negatively impacted if the Applicant is not returned to the Australian community. When the Applicant was in the community, he provided accommodation to his father and general support. The Applicant wants to continue to help his father if he is released from detention. His father is ill and needs support. His father provided a written statement describing the support that his son provided to him generally and in particular whilst he was recovering from surgery. The Applicant is the only family member that his father has in Australia. I take into account that the Applicant's father will be negatively impacted if the Applicant is not released.
4. I also take into account the positive expressions of support from the Applicant's work colleague at the warehouse where he worked for a number of years. His colleague was General Manager and said that the Applicant had always been a diligent, focused and responsible person at work who was trustworthy and had maintained good relationships with other colleagues. He provided a positive witness statement and confirmed his view in oral evidence for Tribunal. He said that he would support the Applicant if he were returned to the community, and he endorsed the Applicant's plan to enrol in a forklift course and get further training.
5. There was a further positive character reference from a family friend who provided written and oral evidence to the Tribunal. As a family friend she has seen the Applicant being a caring husband and father.
6. There were four other positive character references given in writing from persons who know the Applicant. These reflect well on the Applicant and his relationship with his wife and child.
7. The Applicant has developed friendships during the eight years he has been in Australia, and he has both family and social links with Australian citizens. His work as a warehouse manager from 2018 to 2022 and again for a period of six months in 2024 reflects a significant period of positive contribution to the Australian community. He stopped working in late 2022 to help his wife during her pregnancy.
8. I give significant weight to the fact that the Applicant has lived in Australia for more than eight years and has had a period of positive contribution to the Australian community through his work and his family.
9. In conclusion, I consider that this factor weighs in favour of revocation of the cancellation decision.

Best interests of minor children - 8.4 of Direction 110

1. The Applicant has a daughter who is almost three years old. He loves her very much and took time off work before and after her birth so that he could help his wife to look after her. There is no other parental figure besides himself and his wife who are able to assume long term care for her. The Applicant's wife gave evidence about what a good father he has been and how much his daughter misses him. I accept that the Applicant would play a positive parental role in the future and that it will be extremely difficult for his daughter growing up to be separated from her father.
2. If the Applicant were returned to China and separated from his daughter, it would have a devastating impact on her because their relationship would not be able to develop as it would if he were physically present with her in Melbourne. Their relationship would be limited to contact by telephone and video communication which would not be a meaningful way of maintaining a father-daughter relationship. Any physical contact would be limited to when the daughter could go to China which may not be often because of the expense of an overseas trip and the difficult financial circumstances of the wife.
3. It would be the best interests of the Applicant's daughter for the cancellation decision to be revoked so that he could assume his parental role as she grows up over the next 15 years. This is a very significant factor which weighs in favour of revocation of the cancellation decision.

Expectations of the Australian community - 8.5 of Direction 110

1. The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they may do so, the Australian community, as a norm, expects the Government to not allow such a non-citizen to remain in Australia.[21] The Applicant has failed to obey the laws of Australia and has engaged in serious criminal activity. He would therefore be expected to be removed from the community.
2. I conclude that the Australian community expects that the Australian government should cancel the Applicant's visa. The Applicant has engaged in conduct that raises serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the Applicant poses a measureable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.[22] There is a real, albeit low, risk of further crime which in all of the circumstances is unacceptable. This is a factor that weighs heavily against revoking the cancellation decision.

1. In deciding whether there is 'another reason' to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant's visa, I must also take into account the 'other considerations' listed in the Direction, where relevant, but these are not exhaustive.[23]

Legal Consequences of Decision - 9.1 of Direction 110

1. As a consequence of affirming the decision under review, the Applicant will remain in detention and will be liable to be removed from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable. There is no suggestion of a protection finding or any other matter that would delay removal and therefore any further period of detention is not expected to be significant. He will not be able to apply for another visa (except for a protection visa) and his exclusion from Australia will be permanent. These are the "direct and immediate statutorily prescribed consequences"[24] that I am required to take into account. The Applicant has raised no claim of non-refoulement obligations, but he says that the application of a permanent bar on him from returning to Australia is too harsh in all circumstances. These are the intended legal consequences of a visa cancellation and therefore I give no weight to this factor, although it is accepted, as set out earlier in these reasons, that there are other practical consequences for the Applicant and his family who will suffer considerably if he is returned to China.

Extent of impediments if removed - 9.2 of Direction 110

1. The Direction requires that I consider the extent of any impediments that the Applicant may face if removed from Australia to his home country in establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country), taking into account:[25]

(a) the applicant's age and health;

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

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

1. The Applicant is a relatively young and healthy man and he will not face any significant cultural or linguistic barriers in China because he has lived there for the majority of his life and has continued to visit since arriving in Australia. He has numerous relatives in China including his mother and stepfather, his parents in law, his grandparents, an aunt and an uncle and a cousin. However, I accept that the Applicant may not receive support from them and in particular his mother and stepfather because he is not on good terms with his mother.
2. The Applicant is concerned about finding a job because of China's declining economy and his absence from China for a long time. He said he would likely face discrimination in China because of his criminal record which will impact his ability to find employment and accommodation. Subject to the potential for discrimination, the Applicant would not encounter differential access to social, medical or economic support in China in comparison to any other Chinese national. The Applicant also has some work experience and vocational training in Australia that will put him in good stead in the Chinese job market. Additionally, he may be able to avail himself of some support from his mother in China if his relationship with her improves.
3. There would be a period of readjustment for the Applicant upon his return to China which may make it difficult for him to find employment and accommodation and therefore this is a consideration that weighs in favour of revocation, but I would give it limited weight because the identified impediments are minimal and are not so significant as to prevent the Applicant from establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards in China.

Impact on Australian business interests - 9.3 of Direction 110

1. There was no evidence of impact on Australian business interests within the meaning of the Direction. This factor is neutral.

1. I have considered the specific circumstances relating to the Applicant as part of my consideration. I am now required to carry out the evaluative exercise of weighing up the factors to determine whether I am satisfied that there is 'another reason' to revoke the cancellation decision.
2. The primary considerations of the protection and expectations of the Australian community weigh very heavily against the Applicant because of the seriousness of the offending and the serious harm that would occur if it were repeated. The most significant countervailing factors are the primary considerations of the Applicant's ties to Australia and the best interests of his daughter.
3. In my view, the primary considerations of the protection and expectations of the Australian community outweigh the countervailing considerations. I give greater weight to the protection of the Australian community which is what is generally done pursuant to paragraph 7(2) of the Direction. The Australian community would not expect the Applicant to remain in Australia after he committed offences related to child pornography. Persons who engage in importation of child pornography encourage the further sexual exploitation of children. The offending was serious and involved three separate importations. The sexual activity depicted in the videos of pre-pubescent children was degrading and depraved. The Applicant should be removed from Australia because his conduct raises serious character concerns because of the inherent nature of child pornography. A further concern is the Applicant's failure to accept full responsibility for purchasing and obtaining real (as opposed to cartoon) child pornography.
4. The impact of his removal on his wife and daughter is particularly significant but they will be able to visit him and keep in contact with him in China. It will be difficult for the Applicant's wife to afford to travel to China with her daughter, but she told the Tribunal that she would try to visit during Chinese New Year to see the Applicant and also her parents who live in China.
5. I am not satisfied that there is another reason for revoking the cancellation decision. The decision under review is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 76 (seventy-six) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President P Britten-Jones.

.................[sgd].......................................................

Mr D Nikolic and Ms S Galea (Carina Ford Immigration Lawyers)

[1] All references to legislation are to the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) unless otherwise stated.

[2] Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 17, [24], [36].

[3] [2021] HCA 41 at [41].

[4] Direction No. 110 - Migration Act 1958 - Direction under section 499: Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA ('The Direction').

[10] The Direction at 8.1.1(1)(a)(i) and (ii)

[12] The Direction (n 9) at 8.1.2(1).

[13] [2014] FCAFC 673; (2014) 225 FCR 424.

[23] SZRTN v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 303; (2014) 141 ALD 395, 409 at [86]; [2014] FCA 303.

[24] Taulahi v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) 246 FCR 146; [2016] FCAFC 177 at [84]