Navoto v Minister for Home Affairs

1. The application be dismissed with costs. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

ALLSOP CJ: 1 This is an application for review of a decision of the then Assistant Minister for Home Affairs made on 23 April 2018 not to revoke an earlier decision made on 22 March 2017 made by a delegate pursuant to s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). The decision in 2017 involved the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's Class BC Subclass 100 (Spouse) visa. 2 The applicant is a 40 year old Fijian national. He arrived in Australia in 2000. He has three Australian born children who are citizens from a relationship with a former partner. That relationship ended in 2009. At the time of the Minister's decision in April 2018, the three children were 11, 15 and 17 and lived with their mother in Victoria. The applicant has an Australian citizen partner to whom I will refer as Ms R given her circumstances that will become apparent. 3 The applicant's criminal record commenced in 2009. From 2009 to 2012 there were various less serious matters: possessing a dangerous article in a public place, refusing a breath test, theft, driving whilst disqualified, failing to answer bail granted and failing to comply with a community based order. His most serious offending occurred in a domestic violence context. In March 2014, he was sentenced to 18 months in prison for intentionally causing injury and contravening a family violence order. Eleven months of this sentence was suspended for two years. In October 2014, after his release on parole, he contravened a condition of his bail, recklessly caused injury, committed assault with a weapon, and contravened a family violence order. Following these offences, on 18 December 2014, the Minister wrote to the applicant informing him of the mandatory cancellation of his visa. The applicant applied for revocation of this cancellation. He was informed of the success of this application on 5 August 2016. Less than half a year later, on 24 January 2017, the applicant was convicted of intentionally causing injury, making a threat to kill, and intentionally destroying property. He was sentenced to 9 months in prison in aggregate. This final set of convictions is the basis for the current mandatory cancellation of his visa, as his cumulative term of imprisonment for these and his previous convictions is over 12 months in length: s 501(3A)(7)(d) of the Act. 4 This last episode of violence in 2017 was described by the Minister in [36] of the reasons as follows: I note that the offending took place when Mr NAVOTO had been drinking and were carried out against his partner Ms [R], who had locked herself in their bedroom for fear of Mr Navato's 'aggressive nature'. Mr NAVOTO smashed the bedroom window and climbed through, then ran at Ms [R] yelling 'You're fucked' and 'You're dead' and punched her to the face several times, causing it to swell. Mr NAVATO then started throwing things around the room whilst calling Ms [R] a 'slut' and a 'whore'. He then grabbed her by the neck, wrapped a bedsheet around her face and pushed her face into the mattress causing her to be unable to breathe for 'approximately five to 10 seconds'. The police were called and saw Mr NAVOTO standing over and yelling at a 'cowering' Ms [R]. I find these details of the offences add to the seriousness with which I view them. 5 By the letter dated 5 August 2016 under which a delegate of the Minister had communicated with the applicant and informed him of the revocation of the first cancellation decision, the applicant had been notified of the following: Please note: the decision to revoke the original decision does not mean that you cannot be reconsidered for cancellation on character grounds in the future in the event of further criminal offending by you. 6 After the January 2017 conviction, on 22 March 2017, the applicant's visa was mandatorily cancelled under s 501(3A) by reason of a failure to pass the character test. The applicant was informed of such by a letter dated that day. The letter informed the applicant of his opportunity to seek revocation. The letter outlined the nature of the representations and other background as follows: You are hereby invited to make representations to the Minister about revoking the decision to cancel your visa. The representations must be made in accordance with the instructions outlined below, under the headings entitled "How to make representations about revocation of the decision to cancel your visa" and "Timeframe to make representations about revocation". … How to make representations about revocation of the decision to cancel your visa If you decide to make representations about revocation of the decision to cancel your visa, you can write to us using the attached Revocation Request Form. Under s499 of the Act which permits the Minister to issue written directions about the exercise of powers under the act, the Minister has issued Direction 65 - Visa refusal and cancellation under s501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s501CA which identifies issues that are relevant to the revocation consideration. A copy of Direction 65 is enclosed for your information. You should address each paragraph in PART C of the Direction that is relevant to your circumstances. Please note that if the decision-maker who makes the decision regarding whether or not to revoke the decision to cancel your visa is a delegate of the Minister, they must follow Direction 65. If, however, the Minister makes a revocation decision personally, he or she is not bound by Direction 65, although Direction 65 provides a broad indication of the types of issues that the Minister is likely to take into account in deciding whether or not to revoke the decision to cancel your visa. A copy of the following document, which contains information in the possession of the department at the time the mandatory decision to cancel your visa was made, is enclosed for your information. • File note dated 22 March 2017 No further action will be taken in relation to the enclosed information as it will not alter the mandatory decision to cancel. However, if you make representations about revocation of the cancellation decision according to the instructions in this letter as outlined below, then the enclosed information will also be taken into consideration when deciding whether or not to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision. As some of the enclosed information is adverse information that may undermine the possible revocation of the decision to cancel your visa, if you decide to make representations in support of revocation of the decision to cancel your visa, you may also wish to provide specific comments regarding the enclosed information, in particular the adverse information. You can provide any other information that you feel the decision-maker should take into account. This can include, but is not limited to, letters of support from your family, friends, employers or others. The file note dated 22 March 2017 that was enclosed stated the following: I contacted Corrections Victoria by email today. I was advised that Mr Lemeki NAVOTO is serving a sentence of imprisonment on a full time basis in Fulham Prison in Victoria. Previously Mr Lemeki NAVOTO was convicted of Intentionally Cause Injury, Contravene-Family Violence Intervention Order-Int Harm/Fear in Melbourne County Court on 26 March 2014 for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for 18 months. Mr Lemeki NAVOTO was convicted of Intentionally Cause Injury, Make Threat To Kill and Intentionally Destroy Property in Dandenong Magistrates Court on 24 January 2017 for which he was sentenced to imprisonment of nine months. 7 In April 2017 the applicant provided the relevant revocation request form and a personal circumstances form to the Department. Relevantly, in these documents he said in handwriting in relation to reasons for revocation and the relationship with his partner: Request for Revocation of a Mandatory Visa Cancellation under s 501(3A) I HAVE BEING [sic] LIVING AND WORKING IN AUSTRALIA SINCE 2000 AND I HAVE 3 BEAUTIFUL CHILDREN NAME (CHRISTIAN CHARLES NAVOTO, GRACE MILI NAVOTO, AND WILLIAM MAXWELL NAVOTO. I LOVED MY KIDS WITH ALL MY LIFE AND EVERY CHILDREN DESERVED TO BE AND HAVE PARENTS WHETHER FATHER OR MOTHER. AS A FATHER I WILL DO EVERYTHING AND ANY HELP I CAN GET TO BE A BETTER PARTNER, A BETTER FATHER AND A BETTER PERSON TO HELP COMMUNITY AND HELP ALOT [sic] OF PEOPLE IN NEED FOR BETTER LIFE AND LOOK AFTER OUR LAND OF OPPOTUNITY [sic] CALLED AUSTRALIA. Personal Circumstances Form I STARTED HAVING A RELATIONSHIP WITH MY PARTNER [MS R] ON THE 9/1/2011 AFTER SEPARATED WITH MY WIFE SHELLY NAVOTO. ME AND SHELLY NAVOTO SHARED THE RESPONSIBILITY OF BRINGING OUR 3 KIDS REGARDLESS OF LIVING IN TWO SEPARATED HOUSE. THROUGH OUT MY RELATIONSHIP WITH [MS R] I JUST FOUND OUT THAT SHE HAD MENTAL ISSIEUS [sic] WHICH I HAVE TO DEAL WITH AND LOOKING AFTER HER AS HER CARERER [sic] AND PARTNER. I HAVE REASONATLY [sic] (PREVIOUSLY) PROVIDE EVERY LETTERS AND DOCUMENT ABOUT MY RELATIONSHIP WITH [MS R] AND REGARDLESS TO OUR ISSUIS [sic] AND PROBLEM WE REALLY NEED EACHOTHER [sic]. [Emphasis added.] 8 The emboldened part above can be seen to be an incorporation in this 2017 document of what he had previously said of his relationship with Ms R in 2015 and the earlier documents concerned with that matter. 9 There were also handwritten descriptions of his relationship with his children and the effect cancellation of the visa will have on them. Given the issues in the application, there is no call to set these out. 10 In relation to his criminal history and the risk of offending, he wrote: Do you believe that there are any factors that help to explain your offences which should be taken into account by the decision-maker? THE ONLY PROBLEMS THAT I HAVE IS MY RELATIONSHIP WITH MY PARTNER [MS R], AND HOW TO DEAL WITH OUR ALCOHOL CONSUME [sic] AND ANGER MANAGEMENT. I HAVE 12 MONTHS CCO AT THE END OF MY SENTENCE AND I WILL UNDERGO RELATIONSHIP COUNSELLING PROGRAM, ANGER MANAGEMENT AND ALCOHOL COUNSELLING AND GET HELP FOR DEPRESIONS [sic] AND ANXITY [sic] WHICH IM [sic] ON MEDIATION FOR IT. … If yes [in answer to the question "Have you ever previously received a warning from the Department or Minister?"], please indicate why you re-offended. I HAD AGUMENT [sic] WITH MY PARTNER AND I WALK AWAY AND MADE A WRONG DECISION TO DRINK ALCOHOL AND GET DRUNK. BECAUSE MY TABLETS I TOOK AND MIX WITH ALCOHOL MADE ME ACT STUPID AND I DEEPLY REGRET. What do you think is the likelihood that you may re-offend now? Please give reasons for your answer. NONE, AND I STOP DRINKING ALCOHOL AND MY C.C.O PROGRAM WILL KEEP ME ALERT AND GET HELP FOR MY DEPRESION [sic] AND ANXITY [sic]. Have you completed any course or programs that will help you to avoid further offending and to make a positive contribution to the community? Please provide evidence e.g. course completion certificates. MY CORRECTION ORDER WILL PROVIDE ALL THE PROGRAMS WHEN I GET RELEASE FROM PRISON. 11 By letter dated 28 December 2017, the Department invited comment on information (which was enclosed) which it was said may be taken into account, that information being described as: • National Police Certificate dated 23 March 2017 • Sentencing Remarks of the Dandenong Magistrates Court, dated 24 January 2017 • Warning about future conduct (following prior decision not to cancel), dated 5 August 2016 and acknowledgement dated 5 August 2016. 12 In response, the applicant on 8 January 2018 sent a two page email with some enclosures. Though long, it should be set out in full: … This is my response to the notice of intention to cancel my visa dated 22 March 2017. I accept that I have substantial criminal record and do not pass the character test. I would like you to exercise your discretion and not cancel my visa. Please take the following information into consideration when you make your decision. I acknowledge that I have committed offences of a serious nature. My criminal record is relatively long and it includes some offences which are considered as "Serious Offences", and some which also have some aspect of violence. The most recent offence is one of family domestic violence, which occurred on the 5th of December of 2017 at a place where my partner and I resided. Before 2017 I had been convicted of a number of other offences, all of these connected somehow to my alcohol dependence. I started committing offences when I was 32 years of age and I have been convicted of a few offences since then. Some were less serious, such as a drink driving charge in 2011. For the most recent offence of family violence I received a sentence of 9 month [sic] imprisonment and 12 months community correction order. This is at the lower end of the scale of sentences and the Judge took into account a lot of things that were happening in my life at the time of the offence and reduced my sentence. The Judge also said that Her Honour with some rehabilitation I would improve my chances of staying out of trouble. At that time I was 4 months into living back into the community and me and my partner [Ms R] were looking for a new place to stay. We were living in one of the local motel [sic] for about 2 weeks before we found a place where we paid rent and finally settled in. My partner and I had individual issues that needed to be addressed and also get help in order to resolve it. Around this time on the 5th of December my partner and I had an argument and I decided to walk away and left our place. I haven't touched alcohol for about 3 years but on that very day, emotionally stressed and depressed I decided to have a drink of alcohol, which did not bode well and later resulted in me having a conflict with my partner once I returned home. When I was arrested I knew I had done the wrong thing by my partner, who I love and the one person that is there for me when I needed her the most. I naively took upon touching alcohol on that very day to ease my depression and anxiety, and I was wrong. I did not fully comprehend the consequences of my actions for me, my partner or my family. I feel ashamed about the way I treated my partner. : Risks that I might reoffend: This offence is clearly not my first one but all of them are related to my own problems, some with alcohol, some of them being personal problems that have come about because of my own background. I now feel ashamed about the way I have behaved in the past and deeply regret the hurt I have caused to my partner, my kids and other families. I haven't been able to see my kids because of the time I spent in Gaol and while being in Detention centre and that also play a large part for my stress and depression. I am also making an effort to sort out my life and to become a person and a dad that my kids use [sic] to know and be proud of. If I permitted to remain in Australia I will not repeat the mistakes of my past. I am now in a different position to where I was before and with the help of counselling, work, and getting to see my kids again, it will make me a more mature and noble person and hopefully be the better dad that my 3 lovely children deserve. I have been in contact with my partner [Ms R] everyday via telephone and also talked about how we can improve and better our future, and also in terms of seeking relationship counselling if needed. I couldn't put a price on my family, and since the veil that alcohol had put over my eyes has been lifted, there is absolutely nothing I wouldn't [sic] to have the opportunity to have a life with my partner and my children. I have sought proper medication for my depression and I know with the support of my partner and my family in Melbourne, I will maintain my commitment to a better life an stay away from alcohol. I used alcohol impetuously as a means to deal with problems but I have learned so much within this time away from my family and completely rejected that notion ever again. I hope you will take all of the above information into your consideration and find it within you to entrust upon me with a chance to be a better man, husband or father to my family. 13 Also, on 19 January 2018, Ms R, the applicant's partner, made written representations. Again it should be set out in full: My name is [Ms R]. I am writing on behalf of my partner Lemeki Navoto. Lemeki and I are sincerely in love and want to spend the rest of our lives together. I have being [sic] strongly against us being separated, which has affected me both emotionally and physically all throughout this ordeal. I miss him very much, considering his Goul [sic] time and in detention. It has been hard for me being separated from him. I do have daily phone contact with Lemeki and I'm very grateful to have him in my life during this very hard period. I'm very proud of him; he's very fit mentally and physically. I wish for both of us to receive the most professional relationship counselling in aspect of any relationship problems. Lemeki is a very important part of my life. Please consider your decision for him to reside with myself and his children in Australia and for us to continue our long term relationship. I adversely disagree upon the decision on the 6th of December 2017 which derived from a disagreement we both had and which was poorly misled by both of us. I strongly believe, if given the opportunity for both of us to reunite, Lemeki and I will receive the utmost professional help and best advice to fulfil our love for one another in all aspect of our relationship, and pave the way for a beautiful future for us and our children. Please take my request into consideration for your decision regarding Lemeki and myself to uphold our positive long term future relationship and for us to reunite once again. I sincerely request you take the mental and emotional trauma that would be inflicted upon me and our children if we are kept separated and consider in your decision to let us reunite, so we can live the rest of our lives together. 14 On 6 March 2018, by letter of that date, the Department invited further representations on further information (which was enclosed) being the papers that were before the earlier delegate (who had revoked the first cancellation decision). The information was described as follows: • Revocation Request dated 9 January 2015 • Submission by Mr Lemeki NAVOTO undated • Personal Details Form dated 13 January 2015 • Legal Submission from Victoria Legal Aid dated 6 February 2015 • Letter of Support from Ms Ilisapeci Davis dated 19 May 2015 • Legal Submission from Victoria Legal Aid dated 23 November 2015 15 In the undated submission (the second of the above documents), the applicant addressed his children, his hopes to deal with alcohol and reside with his partner. The submission did not mention any mental illness of his partner. It did refer to the death of his mother and his leaving Fiji thereafter "cause I have nothing to live for in there [sic]." 16 In the personal details from (the third of the above documents), the applicant said the following about returning to Fiji: If yes, please describe your concerns and what you think will happen to you if you return I DON'T HAVE ANY IMMEDIATE FAMILY LEFT THAT I'M CLOSE TO. MY MUM AND MY FOSTER PARENTS ARE BOTH PAST AWAY [sic] AND MY CONCERN IS THAT I DON'T HAVE A LIFE OR ANYTHING TO LIVE FOR IN MY COUNTRY OF CITIZENSHIP. BUT TO BE IN AUSTRALIA WITH MY KIDS AND PARTNER. 17 In the legal submission from Victoria Legal Aid of February 2015 (the fourth of the above documents), various submissions were put. The first was on the subject of the protection of the Australian community. In over a page of discussion on this subject and in a part of it explaining his actions, it stated: … Once again, these offences occurred while he was drunk. He describes 2012-2013 as a particularly difficult period in his life: his ex-wife was being obstructive in letting him see his children, resulting in his sporadic contact with them ceasing altogether in 2012; he lost his job in October 2012 due of lack of available work; his depression continued but remained untreated; and he was experiencing problems and volatility in his relationship with Ms [R], who suffers from a mental illness and for whom he was essentially the primary carer. Throughout this period, Mr Navoto used alcohol as a form of escapism and self-medication, with disastrous consequences. Clearly, the risk of Mr Navoto reoffending and endangering the Australian community in the future is intrinsically linked to his ability to address his alcohol addiction and his underlying mental illness. While he was apparently diagnosed with depression and anxiety in the past by his GP at Dandenong West Medical Centre, he declined treatment for it at the time as he was embarrassed by the diagnosis, and felt that he could just "tough it out". During his current period of incarceration he has come to terms with the fact that he needs to accept treatment for his illness, and has commenced anti-depressants and anti-anxiety medication which he feels is slowly taking effect. Upon release from prison he is committed to continuing in his treatment, and hopes to go onto a mental health plan and seek the support of a psychologist. Mr Navoto's changed attitude towards medication and treatment for his illness bodes well for his rehabilitation, and his avoidance of alcohol as a means of self-medication. If Mr Navoto can indeed address his alcohol dependence, it is submitted that the Department ought to have confidence that the risk to the Australian community of his committing further offences is substantially reduced. 18 In a later section of the same document on the subject of the "Strength, nature and duration of his ties to the Australian community", the following was stated: Despite his criminal past and the offences committed against her, Mr Navoto remains in a committed relationship with his partner, Ms [R]. Their relationship commenced around 2009. Ms [R] suffers from schizophrenia and depression, and Mr Navoto describes himself as her main carer prior to his incarceration, cooking and cleaning for her, ensuring her compliance with treatment, and taking her to appointments, etc. Somewhat ironically given the incidents that led to his incarceration, he describes Ms [R] as a very vulnerable person and that despite the problems in their relationship, he has a deep desire to protect her. Mr Navoto also instructs however that their relationship was extremely difficult, as Ms [R's] illness at times manifested in erratic, suspicious and controlling behaviour that was a source of great frustration to him. His issues with alcohol and his inability to appropriately deal with his anger and frustration are what led to his very serious offending. Nonetheless, Mr Navoto and Ms [R] are committed to their relationship, and hope to have an opportunity to address their problems in a constructive way upon Mr Navoto's release from prison. In addition to Ms [R], Mr Navoto enjoys a close relationship with his cousin, Ilisapeci Davis, who lives in Craigieburn. Mr Navoto has had a number of family members in Fiji pass away in recent years, and Ms Davis is his main remaining contact with his family. 19 In the letter of support of Ms Davis, the applicant's first cousin (the fifth of the above documents), she stated: I believe that the best way forward for Lemeki to overcome his depression, is to remain in Australia where he will get the full support of myself and my Husband. He would also get professional counselling here in Australia and be able to build his life back. Unfortunately, if he was to be sent back to Fiji, he would surely lose contact with his three children and would also not have the support or professional counselling that he could get here in Australia. 20 The Minister's decision began at [11] and [12] with a statement that all material submitted had been considered and with a brief summary of the representations: 11. In undertaking this task, I assessed all of the information set out in the attachments. In particular, I considered Mr NAVOTO's representations and the documents he has submitted in support of his representations regarding why the original decision should be revoked. 12. In the representations/document submitted by or on his behalf, Mr NAVOTO has articulated reasons why the original decision should be revoked, which include: - He has lived in Australia since 2000. - He has three Australian citizen children whom he loves and he states they deserve to have both parents in their lives. - He will do everything to be a better parent, partner and person, to help the community. - He has a partner in Australia with whom he plans to reside if released. They need each other and he was her carer before being imprisoned. - He does not have immediate family in Fiji or anything to go back for. 21 At [13]-[19] of the reasons, there was discussion of the best interests of the applicant's (minor) children. 22 At [20]-[26] of the reasons under the heading "Strength, nature and devotion of ties" the following was stated: 20. In coming to my decision about whether or not I am satisfied that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked, I have had regard to the strength, nature and duration of Mr NAVOTO's ties to Australia. 21. Mr NAVOTO has resided in Australia for some 17 years, having arrived as an adult, of 22 years. 22. I have given more weight to this consideration as Mr NAVOTO contributed positively to the community through his employment activities from 2001 to 2012 and his volunteering activities, albeit limited. I find that until his offending, Mr NAVOTO had been making a positive contribution to the community through these activities and I have taken this into account. 23. I accept that Mr NAVOTO has some family ties in Australia, in the form of his children, who are discussed above, and his current partner, Ms [R]. Ms [R] was the victim of his domestic violence offence. However he submits that their relationship is ongoing and that they need each other. Ms [R] has mental health issues, namely schizophrenia and depression, and Mr NAVOTO states that he was her main carer before being incarcerated. He adds that despite their past problems, they hope to address their issues in a constructive way. 24. I note Ms [R] has submitted a letter of support in which she states that Mr NAVOTO is a very important part of her life, that they sincerely love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together and that being separated from him has affected her emotionally and physically. I accept that Ms [R] is in some sense dependent on Mr NAVOTO and strongly wishes to resume their relationship, but I have some reservations about whether this is to her benefit, in view of the fact that he has inflicted serious violence on her on several occasions, as discussed above. Nonetheless, I accept her views as expressed. 25. Other than Ms [R] and his children, Mr NAVOTO has not indicated any relatives in Australia, though a cousin, Ms Ilisapeci Davis, has written to support his revocation request. 26. I have considered the effect of non-revocation upon Ms [R] and, to a lesser extent, his cousin Ms Davis, and accept that those persons would experience some emotional hardship and, in the case of Ms [R], some practical hardship also. I find that Mr NAVOTO has been making a positive contribution to the community through his employment and volunteer activities and I have taken this into account. 23 It is relevant to note at this point that there was no express, or separate, discussion of the fact or nature of Ms R's mental illness. 24 At [27]-[31] of the reasons under the heading "Extent of impediments if removed", the following was stated: 27. In coming to my decision about whether or not I am satisfied that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked, I have had regard to the impediments that Mr NAVOTO will face if removed from Australia to his home country of Fiji in establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards. 28. I note that Mr NAVOTO suffers from depression and anxiety and takes medication for such. I consider that appropriate treatment and medication for this condition is likely to be available in Fiji, though I acknowledge that it may not be of the same standard as that available in Australia and it may be harder to obtain, as indicated by Ms Davis in her letter. 29. I note Mr NAVOTO submits that he does not have immediate family in Fiji, would not have anything to live for there and would not be able to see his Australian children if he were removed to Fiji. 30. I accept that Mr NAVOTO may experience emotional hardship if he is removed from Australia and thereby separated from his children and partner. However, as a citizen of Fiji he will have access to government support service equal to that of other citizens of that country, though I acknowledge that these may not be of the same standard as available to him in Australia. 31. Given Mr NAVOTO spent significant time in Fiji, I find that he would have developed an adequate knowledge of its cultural and social norms which would facilitate his reintegration to its society. I find that Mr NAVOTO's English language skills would further assist his reintegration to Fijian society, given that English is one of Fiji's official languages. Mr NAVOTO has consistently worked in Australia, and I find that he possesses work skills that would assist him in endeavouring to secure employment in Fiji in order to sustain a basic standard of living. 25 At [32]-[48] of the reasons, there was a lengthy discussion of the protection of the Australian community, the applicant's criminal conduct, and the risk to the Australian community. 26 The Minister's conclusions as to revocation were stated at [52]-[57] of the reasons as follows: 52. In considering, in light of Mr NAVOTO's representations, whether I was satisfied that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked, I gave primary consideration to the best interests of Mr NAVOTO's children Christian, Grace and William. I found that their best interests would be served by the revocation of the original decision. 53. In addition, I have considered the positive contribution Mr NAVOTO has made to the Australian community through his employment and volunteering activities and/or the consequences of non-revocation of the original decision for his partner and cousin. 54. On the other hand, in considering whether I was satisfied that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked, I gave significant weight to the very serious nature of the crimes committed by Mr NAVOTO, some of which are of a violent nature. 55. Further, I find that the Australian community could be exposed to significant harm should Mr NAVOTO reoffend in a similar fashion. I could not rule out the possibility of further offending by Mr NAVOTO. 56. In reaching my decision about whether I am satisfied that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked, I concluded that Mr NAVOTO represents an unacceptable risk of harm to the Australian community and that the protection of the Australian community outweighed the best interests of his children, as a primary consideration, and any other considerations as described above. These include his, employment, volunteer and familial ties to Australia, and the hardship Mr NAVOTO, his partner and to a lesser extend his cousin will endure in the event the original decision is not revoked. 57. Having given full consideration to all of these matters, I am not satisfied, for the purposes of s501CA(4)(b)(ii), that there is another reason why the original decision under s501(3A) to cancel Mr NAVOTO's visa should be revoked. Accordingly, as I am not satisfied that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked, my power to revoke is not enlivened and Mr NAVOTO's Class BC, Subclass 100 (Spouse) visa remains cancelled. 27 By an amended application for review of a migration decision filed 18 October 2018, the applicant set out the following grounds of review (as amended at the hearing): 1. In exercising the power under s 501CA(4), the respondent did not consider (or give any real consideration to) the representations made by the applicant seeking revocation of the original mandatory cancellation decision. Particulars of representations 1.1 Representations in relation to the mental health of the applicant's wife namely that she has schizophrenia and depression and he was her carer 1.2 Representations in relation to the mental health hardship the applicant's departure from Australia would have on his wife. 1.3 Representations in relation to him having no family ties in Fiji such that he would be homeless and without physical and emotional support. 1.4 Representations that he could not get professional counselling for his mental illness in Fiji. 1.5 Representations that has no family ties or support networks in Fiji and would be left homeless if returned to Fiji. 2. In exercising the power under s 501CA(4), the respondent made findings of fact for which there was no evidence and which were contrary to the evidence Particular of finding of fact 2.1 At [28] of the Statement of Reasons, the respondent states that appropriate treatment for the applicant's mental illness is likely to be available in Fiji. Ms Davis states that he could not access this treatment. 2.2 At [31] of the Statement of Reasons that he has work skills that would assist him to secure employment in Fiji in order to sustain a basic standard of living 3. The non-revocation decision was unreasonable in the sense identified in Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332.