1. The hearing took place in Perth on 10 and 13 November 2025. The Applicant appeared in person and was without legal representation. He was assisted by an interpreter throughout the proceedings. The Minister's representative appeared by Microsoft Teams.
2. The following documents were marked as exhibits:

(a) Hearing Bundle, comprising 578 pages (Exhibit R1);[11] > > (b) Letter to the Applicant from the Prisoners Review Board, dated 12 November 2025 (Exhibit R2); and > > (c) Letter from Ms BF, dated 10 November 2025 (Exhibit A1).

3. The Applicant, Ms BF, Mr MF, and Mr NF gave oral evidence and were cross-examined.
4. The Applicant was a neat, softly spoken, and courteous man. He maintained his composure throughout his cross-examination and was able to express himself quite well in spoken English. He used the interpreter appropriately, particularly for the translation of documents. Despite some difficult questioning, and the high stress of the situation he was in, he impressed me as a thoughtful and careful person, who was grateful for the opportunity to be heard, and the opportunity to live in Australia. He gave his evidence under a Christian oath having converted to Christianity since his arrival in Australia.[12]

Migration Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(e) the expectations of the Australian community.

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

(b) extent of impediments if removed; and

(c) impact on Australian business interests.

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

(b) the protection of the Australian community is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations, and primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations; and

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

1. The issues to be determined in this application are:

(a) whether the Applicant passes the character test; and

(b) if not, whether I am satisfied there is another reason why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked.[15]

1. On 19 August 2021, the Applicant was convicted of manslaughter and received an overall sentence of 9 years and 2 months' imprisonment, with eligibility for parole.[16] He had been charged with murder and was acquitted of that charge, following a trial before a Judge and jury in the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

1. The Applicant fails the character test in section 501(6) of the Act as a matter of law.[17] This arises as a result of the fact that his conviction for manslaughter, along the sentence imposed for this conviction, means he falls within the meaning of section 501(7) of the Act, having been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.

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

1. The power to revoke the Cancellation Decision will only be enlivened if there is 'another reason', within the meaning of section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act, why it should be revoked. The bulk of the evidence and submissions at the hearing were directed at this issue.

1. In his statement, the Applicant said that he was no longer a threat to the community for the following reasons:[18]

Aside from some historical driving charges, this is the first time that I have ever come to the attention of the police or court systems in a negative light. I am not a repeat offender, and have no intention of becoming one. > > I do not associate with any outlaw motorcycle gangs, or any other organised crime group of any kind. > > I have an impeccable prison record, having not received a single prison charge or loss of privilege for the entirety of my custodial sentence, and spending several years residing in units reserved for privileged inmates. > > I did not offend during the 12 months that I spent on home detention bail before beginning this custodial sentence. I abided by all conditions which were assigned to me, and took many steps towards bettering myself. > > I do not have any substance abuse issues whatsoever, I have never used illicit drugs of any kind, and do not drink alcohol either.

2. The Applicant believes the overriding factors that led to his offending were a lack of consequential thinking, misguided loyalty towards an antisocial peer group, and a failure to recognise an extremely high-risk situation.
3. At the hearing the Applicant said that he accepted the decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia and, in particular, he told me that he accepted the Judge's sentencing remarks. He believes he is reformed and has learnt his lesson.
4. The Minister's submissions were, in summary, that the considerations in favour of revoking the Cancellation Decision were heavily outweighed by those considerations against revocation. In particular, the Minister submitted that the weight to be accorded to the two primary considerations of protection of the Australian community and the expectations of the Australian community outweighed all other considerations in the circumstances of this matter.

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

1. The Applicant's criminal history which gave rise to the Cancellation Decision is set out at paragraph 23 above. Prior to this conviction, he had a short record of offences commencing shortly after his arrival, in 2014 aged 19. The Applicant's convictions, other than for minor traffic infringements are set out in the Annexure A to my reasons.

1. I must consider the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's criminal offending and other conduct.[20] I am directed that certain types of criminal or other conduct is viewed very seriously by the Government and the Australian community[21] and that certain criminal or other conduct is considered serious[22]. The scope of what I may consider as either very serious or serious, is not limited to those matters specifically included in Direction 110.[23]
2. The Applicant's offending history is outlined in the Annexure A of this decision. The Minister submits the offence of manslaughter is 'objectively very serious' and 'arguably one of the most serious violent offences that can be committed'.[24] The Minister further submits this consideration weighs very heavily against revocation, and that this is determinatively so, given the protection of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian government.[25]
3. The Applicant's previous offending is of a different nature to the manslaughter conviction. It comprises:[26]

(a) two convictions from 2014 arising out of the Applicant, then aged 19, riding a motorcycle without a licence, failing to stop for police, and being chased by police; > > (b) two convictions in May 2017 for property damage and fighting, arising out of an incident in November 2016 at a Karaoke Bar in Northbridge, an entertainment district in Perth; > > (c) one conviction for unlawful damage arising out of a 2017 incident in a suburban shopping centre carpark where the Applicant damaged a weather shield on another person's car during an altercation between the two drivers; and > > (d) there are also five traffic offences for which the Applicant received automatic fines and demerit points on his driver's licence.

4. The offences in (a) above resulted in a 6-month term of imprisonment, all the remaining offences were dealt with by way of fines.
5. I do not regard the offences in (a) and (d) as being particularly serious.
6. There are violent elements to the offences in paragraphs (b) and (c), of which the Karaoke Bar incident is the most serious. That incident took place late at night and at a time when all concerned had apparently been drinking alcohol. It involved two groups of people throwing punches, items of furniture, and ice buckets and glassware in a small private room, resulting in multiple people suffering minor injuries, including the Applicant, and damage to the room and its contents with an estimated value of $28,000.[27] These offences are plainly serious.
7. The manslaughter offence took place with a group of associates. Six men attended a heavily secured property in suburban Perth. The property owner, who was involved in drug dealing,[28] was the victim of a bashing by one or two men in the group, and the two men who are said to be the ring leaders have never been apprehended. The Applicant and four others were charged with murder. One was acquitted, two, including the Applicant, were convicted of manslaughter, and one was convicted of a lesser offence. Whilst the Applicant denied in the Tribunal that he was present inside the property at the time of the bashing, I am bound by the sentencing Judge's remarks, which I have read and considered.[29] The seriousness of this offending is reflected in the sentence of over 9 years' imprisonment.
8. The Minister placed some emphasis on some minor infractions alleged to have occurred in prison.[30] None of these matters resulted in any charges being laid against the Applicant and none involved any violence, drugs, alcohol, bad language, or damage to any person or thing. In my view these incidents are so minor as to be irrelevant.
9. In my view, the offending as a whole is very serious and weighs heavily against revocation.

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

1. I must also consider the risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences.[31] This requires an assessment of the nature of the harm should the Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct,[32] and an assessment of the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in that type of conduct.[33] There is no statutory constraint on the way I am to assess that risk, other than the requirement for me to adopt a rational and probative approach to the assessment.[34]

1. To determine the risk to the Australian community if the Applicant committed further offences or engaged in other serious conduct, I must consider the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should he reoffend.[35]
2. The Applicant has been convicted of manslaughter, one of the most serious offences known to the law. The offending involved extreme violence, took place in the victim's own home, was against the background of drug dealing, and involved a group of men as offenders who, at the very least, failed to render assistance to the victim as he was assaulted. There are several factors which appear in both the manslaughter and the earlier offence in the Karaoke Bar, being the use of violence and the element of group offending.
3. The sort of harm which is done to the community by the types of offending the Applicant has been involved in is multifaceted. It includes:

(a) the physical harm to the victims of the violence, including relevantly, the death of the victim of the manslaughter; > > (b) the psychological harm caused to the victim's family members, including relevantly, the young daughter of the deceased, her mother, and his siblings; and > > (c) the psychological harm caused to the workers and other patrons at the Karaoke Bar who witnessed the fight.

4. In addition, there is the economic harm caused to the general public through the drain on police, health, and justice resources caused by the offending.
5. I consider the nature of the harm which may be caused if the Applicant reoffended in a similar manner to his past history, to be very serious.

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

1. To determine the risk to the Australian community if the Applicant committed further offences or engaged in other serious conduct, I must also consider the likelihood of reoffending if he is permitted to remain in the Australian community.[36]
2. The Applicant relied on his participation in workshops including the General Offending Program and the Alternative to Violence Project Workshops, and numerous educational courses, including obtaining a Construction White Card as evidence of his rehabilitation. He says these courses have contributed to him being a 'much more mature, well-rounded and emotionally intelligent man'.[37] I accept that he has attended these courses, developed skills and undertaken self-reflection.
3. The Minister submitted there remains a risk that the Applicant will reoffend due to his denial of the elements of the offence as found by the Sentencing Judge. In this case, the Minister submits any prediction of future risk prediction is difficult to make.[38]
4. The Minister noted the following risk factors which may potentially lead to reoffending:[39]
   1. An upbringing marked by hardship including exposure to domestic violence, drug-related activities, fleeing Iran and seeking refuge in Australia.
   2. Lack of parental and familial support given that he left Iran at the age of 16.
   3. Negative influences and peer-associations.
   4. The applicant's age at the time of offending - the Applicant was 22 years old at the time of the offence.
   5. Alcohol abuse.
5. Of these, it is my view that his lack of support and the negative influences of his peer associates are the most significant risk factors into the future. His relative youth at the time of the manslaughter means he has likely matured since that time. The Applicant informed me that he has not consumed alcohol since the offending which I have described in [34(b)] and [37] above. I accept the Applicant's evidence, as a result of which I do not regard alcohol as a risk factor for future offending.
6. During the hearing, the Applicant received notification from the Prisoner's Review Board that it had deferred consideration of his application for parole.[40] The notification said, in part:

1. The Board adjourns consideration of your application for parole to allow time for you to work with your Community Corrections Officer, the Transitional Manager at the prison and community agencies on a more robust parole plan. Such a plan should include suitable accommodation, community supports and ways to address your ongoing treatment needs. The Board notes the Medium Intensity Program Report dated 10 March 2025 which concluded you would benefit from additional support in increasing insight into your behaviours and strengthening self-management skills. > > 2. Further, the Board adjourns to request a Psychological Report to include a risk assessment and any recommendations regarding treatment and community supports as part of a suitable parole plan.[41]

7. It is clear that the Prisoner's Review Board has concerns about whether the Applicant presents too high a risk of reoffending to be able to be released into the community on parole. The Report cited by the Prisoner's Review Board, made following the Applicant's engagement in the Medium Intensity Program, noted that his reflections on his offending were surface level and that he appeared to externalise responsibility to his antisocial peers. It also noted that his understanding of English hindered his ability to derive a risk management plan which had an appropriate level of understanding of his risk areas and strategies to manage those risks.[42]
8. I have no doubt that the Applicant has genuine intentions: to obtain secure employment, work hard, reunite with his partner, provide for her and her son, and to stay clear of trouble. However, the building blocks for him acting in this positive manner are not all present at this time. He continues to deny any real involvement in the manslaughter, maintaining he was outside the victim's home at the time of the offence leaving soon after the commencement of the offence. Furthermore, he demonstrated in his responses to questions in the hearing that he has no deep insight into his behaviour and the parts of his life which place him at a higher risk of reoffending.
9. Whilst the Applicant said that he accepted the Judge's findings in his sentencing remarks, I cannot place weight on this for two reasons. First, the Applicant's English comprehension is very limited so that whilst his spoken English is functionally quite good, he cannot read English and therefore has not had the opportunity to review the findings, consider the detail of them, and reflect on them with the appropriate depth. Secondly, the Applicant continued to deny being inside the house and therefore deny any real involvement in the crime when this was put to him during cross-examination.
10. In my view, the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in further criminal conduct is moderate, which, given the nature of his offending, specifically the manslaughter, is too high a risk for him to be released.

Conclusion on the protection of the Australian community

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

1. There is no evidence of family violence. Consequently, this consideration is irrelevant.

The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia

1. I accordance with paragraph 8.3 of Direction 110, I must also consider the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia.
2. The Applicant arrived in Australia aged 17 in August 2012 as a refugee and has spent 13 years here.[43] The Applicant's partner and her son live in Perth, and the Applicant wishes to live with them should he be released into the community.[44] He also has several close friends and family friends living in Australia, including Mr NF and his son, Mr MF.
3. The Minister conceded this consideration weighs in the Applicant's favour, but only to a limited degree.[45]
4. The Applicant has an uncle in Australia with whom he has what he describes as 'a very close relationship',[46] and a support for his entire time in Australia.[47] His uncle has remained in contact with the Applicant during his time in prison. The uncle was not asked to give evidence at the hearing, which I infer was a result of the Applicant's lack of legal representation, that is, he may not have been asked. The uncle has three children, and presumably a spouse. I also infer from the Applicant's descriptions of his uncle's support and guidance, that the uncle has been in Australia for a longer period of time than the Applicant and has deep roots in the Australian community.
5. The Applicant and his partner, Ms BF, have known each other since 2016 and have been together as a couple since 2021. She has a son from an earlier relationship, and I consider his interests later in these reasons. Ms BF was born in Australia to New Zealand citizens and holds New Zealand citizenship. She has lived in Australia all her life, as does most of her family. She gave evidence before me, in person, and provided a letter in support of the Applicant.[48] I observed them together and the relationship appears genuine and caring. Both expressed a desire to have a family together.
6. Ms BF struck me as an honest, hard-working, and motivated woman. She has a clerical job and runs a couple of side businesses, and she is plainly educated and intelligent. She is very focused on her 13-year-old son's future and appears to do all she can to ensure that he has every opportunity to fulfill his obvious sporting ability. She has a functional relationship with her son's father, from whom she split 10 years ago. That is, there is no evidence of any disputation, and the father maintains considerable engagement with their son. She is willing and able to provide a home for the Applicant. She frankly admitted that there were strains on the relationship as a result of his imprisonment, which is entirely understandable. I believe her influence on the Applicant to be positive.
7. Mr NF and his son Mr MF are both Australian citizens.

(a) Mr NF met the Applicant through his son, Mr MF. He owns a building company and has offered employment to the Applicant in the building industry utilising the skills the Applicant has developed in his training courses over his time in prison and prior to that. Mr NF told me that he had the Applicant work with him on an informal basis, at his own home, in the past and was impressed with his work ethic and his politeness. > > (b) Mr MF is a personal trainer. He has known the Applicant for most of the time the Applicant has been in Australia and is friends with him. He has offered his home as accommodation to the Applicant. Mr MF met the Applicant through a mutual sporting interest in Muay Thai and so has a positive social relationship with him. > > 1. Ms BF, Mr NF and Mr MF demonstrate that the Applicant has formed positive, long-standing relationships and associations in the Australian community since his arrival here.

8. Overall, I conclude that the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia weighs moderately in favour of revocation of the Cancellation Decision.

Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision

1. I must also consider the best interests of the minor children in Australia affected by the decision.

1. The Applicant's partner, Ms BF, has one child, ZB, aged 13. The son has a promising sporting talent and may be able to pursue a career in professional sport.
2. The Applicant's contact with ZB is limited. They have only met in person on one occasion, which is understandable given that the Applicant was in medium security at Acacia Prison until earlier in 2025. His move to Karnet Prison farm enabled ZB to visit the Applicant in person. The Applicant told me that he did not want ZB to visit him in Acacia, which shows insight and maturity on the part of the Applicant.
3. The relationship between ZB and the Applicant has developed over the years by telephone contact, during the regular conversations in the car between the Applicant and Ms BF. They have developed a good relationship and have positive discussion about sport and other common interests.
4. ZB spends considerable time with his own father, including every second weekend and school holidays. He has several step siblings from his father having re-partnered. Whilst ZB has a positive relationship with the Applicant, it is not parental, and his father is very much a part of his life.
5. I accept the genuineness of the Applicant's expressions of care for ZB, and the evidence of Ms BF that they have a good relationship that she wishes to see develop further.
6. I find that the best interests of ZB moderately favour the revocation of the Cancelation Decision.

1. The Applicant's uncle has three children under the age of 18. Two of these children were born since the Applicant has been in prison and so are not personally known to him.
2. I accept as a general proposition that having family ties close at hand is a positive thing. I therefore accept that the Applicant's minor cousins will benefit from having their older cousin in their lives, and that it is in their interests to develop and maintain cultural and family ties as they grow up in Australia.
3. I find that the best interests of the three cousins moderately favour the revocation of the Cancelation Decision.

1. I am required to consider the expectations of the Australian community as set out in paragraph 8.5 of Direction 110. The consideration of this question, as with the others, is done against the background of the principles set out in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110 and specifically in this case, those matters set out in paragraphs 5.2(2), 5.2(3) and 5.2(4).
2. The first sentence of paragraph 8.5(1) is a reflection of the rule of law as it applies to both citizens and non-citizens.[49] The remainder of paragraph 8.5(1) sets out the expectations of the Australian community as a norm. I accept that the effect of this is to deem what the expectations of the community are and thereby preclude me from undertaking any assessment of what, in any particular factual circumstances, the actual expectations of the Australian community might be.[50] That proposition itself is contained in paragraph 8.5(4) of Direction 110. The utility of this approach by Government in order to assist decision-makers is obvious.
3. Paragraph 8.5(2) also provides guidance by saying:

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

4. The Minister submitted this consideration weighs very heavily against revocation.[51]
5. I have dealt with the risk to the community if the Applicant were to reoffend earlier in my reasons at [41] to [57] above. I came to the view that the Applicant poses a risk of harm to the Australian community given his past behaviour and the incompleteness of his rehabilitation.
6. In my view, the safety of the Australian community is of paramount importance. In this case, the Applicant has been convicted of one of the most serious crimes known to the community. The expectations of the Australian community in this case fall well within the boundaries of paragraph 8.5(2) of Direction 110, which I have set out above. That is, he has been convicted of a crime that the Australian community would expect that he should no longer hold a visa.
7. I therefore find that the expectations of the Australian community weighs strongly against revocation of the Cancellation Decision.

Legal consequences of decision under section 501 or 501CA

1. I am required to consider the legal consequences of a decision on a non-citizen, including having regard to Australia's non-refoulement obligations in respect of unlawful non-citizens.[52]
2. Generally, if a visa is cancelled its former holder becomes an unlawful non-citizen immediately after cancellation, and is liable to detention and removal as soon as reasonably practicable.[53] Under section 189 of the Act, the Applicant must be detained and removed as soon as reasonably practicable under section 198.[54] The Applicant's situation is more complex as a result of the fact that he has the benefit of a protection finding[55] and so paragraph 9.1.1 of Direction 110 applies. That is, he is a person to whom Australia owes non-refoulment obligations and so his removal to his home country, Iran, is neither required nor authorised by the Act.
3. The immediate legal consequence of my deciding to affirm the Cancellation Decision is that the Applicant will remain in prison until he is granted parole by the Prisoner's Review Board, or the conclusion of his sentence, whichever comes first. Following the High Court's decision in NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs,[56] the Applicant cannot be indefinitely detained following his release from prison, whether on parole or at the conclusion of his sentence. He will however not have a protection visa if I do not revoke the Cancellation Decision.
4. The statutory consequences of having no visa include:

(a) the status of unlawful; > > (b) being subject to detention and possibly removal under sections 189, 196, 197C and 198 of the Act; > > (c) being prevented from making another protection visa whilst in the migration zone in accordance with section 48A of the Act; > > (d) being prohibited from applying for other visas under section 501E of the Act, other than a Bridging R (Class WR) visa.

5. I am mindful that the Minister has submitted that I should not speculate about what may happen in the future to the Applicant. I must however have regard to the direct and immediate prescribed consequences under the Act.[57] In the case of a person in this Applicant's position, the effect of my decision is that all of the statutory consequences of the decision I have identified above become a live issue.
6. In addition to those matters mentioned above at [88], there is also the possibility of resettlement to a third country, for example Nauru, in accordance with an arrangement entered into between Australia and Nauru. Whilst I cannot consider those arrangements,[58] I can take into consideration the fact that in order for the Applicant to go to Nauru he will need to apply for a Nauruan visa in accordance with section 198AHB(2) of the Act, which is an exercise of statutory power, and so relevant to my decision.[59]
7. Whilst not speculating what decisions may be made in the future, it is plain that my making a decision to not revoke the Cancellation Decision will give rise to considerable uncertainty and stress for the Applicant. These are matters which arise directly from the statutory consequences of my decision.
8. I find that this consideration carries strong weight in favour of revocation of the Cancellation Decision.

1. Paragraph 9.2 of Direction 110 provides that taking into account the matters identified in sub-paragraphs 9.2(1)(a), (b) and (c) of Direction No 110, the Tribunal must consider the extent to which the Applicant would face an impediment or impediments in establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country.
2. Given that the Applicant has the benefit of a protection finding as a result of the risk of harm he would face if returned to Iran,[60] the Minister submitted that this consideration does not arise.
3. I am mindful of the thoughtful analysis of Deputy President Burford in KZYH at [189]ff and agree, for the reasons she has explained, that the consideration does not presently arise in circumstances where there is a protection finding and no consideration of returning the Applicant to Iran.
4. I find therefore that this consideration does not arise.

1. There is no evidence that any business interests would be affected by this decision. Consequently, this consideration is irrelevant.

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

(a) the protection of the Australian community weighs strongly against revocation; > > (b) the expectations of the Australian community weighs strongly against revocation of the Cancellation Decision; > > (c) the Applicant's ties to Australia weighs moderately in favour of revocation; > > (d) family violence is not relevant to my decision; and > > (e) the best interests of minor children weighs moderately in favour of revocation of the Cancelation Decision.

5. In relation to those other considerations, I find:

(a) the legal consequences of the decision carries strong weight in favour of revocation of the Cancellation Decision; and > > (b) the extent of impediments if removed and the impact on Australian businesses are not relevant to my decision.

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

1. For the reasons set out above, on 26 November 2025 I affirmed the decision of the delegate of the Minister dated 27 August 2025, not to revoke the cancellation of Applicant's Class XA Subclass 886 Protection visa under s 501CA(4) of the Act.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and six paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President Clare Thompson SC

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

Imprisonment: 9 Years 2 months from 20 September 2018.

Criminal Damage or Destruction of Property; Criminal Code (WA) section 444(1)(b)A

Fighting in public causing fear; Criminal Code (WA) section 71

Reckless Driving - Inherently Dangerous (to escape pursuit by police)

Disqualified from holding a motor vehicle licence for 2 years

Failed to stop when called upon to do so - circumstance of aggravation

Disqualified from holding a motor vehicle licence for 2 years

Letter from Department to applicant: Notification of decision not to revoke visa cancellation decision made under section 501(3A) of the Act, attaching:

Attachment 1: Decision by delegate under section 501CA(4) of the Act

Attachment 3: Statement of reasons for decision under section 501CA of the Act

Attachment B: Sentencing remarks of the Supreme Court of Western Australia

Attachment C: Sentence summary offender report produced by Department of Justice Corrective Services

Attachment G: Request for revocation of a mandatory visa cancellation under section 501(3A) of the Act

Attachment K: Certificate of achievements for Peaceful Pathways - Advanced workshop

Attachment L: Certificate of achievements for Peaceful Pathways - Basic workshop

Attachment N: Notice of visa cancellation under section 501(3A) of the Act

Signed acknowledgment receipt of notice of decision not to revoke visa cancellation under section 501CA(4) of the Act

Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions

Respondent's Updated Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions

Extract of documents produced under summons by Western Australia Police Force:

Documents produced under summons by the Magistrates Court of Western Australia

Extract of documents produced under summons by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions:

Factual basis for sentencing filed on behalf of the Applicant

State's Proposed Statement of Material Facts for Sentencing

Documents produced under summons by the Department of Justice:

Documents produced under summons by the Department of Transport

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

[11] Annexure B sets out the contents of the hearing bundle.

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

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

[19] See also Direction 110 at [8(1)].

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

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

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

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

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

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

[34] BSJ16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1181 at [68]; Hambledon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 7 at [41].

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

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

[41] Emphasis added. The Medium Intensity Program Report was before me at Exhibit R1, HB483.

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

[53] Sections 15, 189 and 198 of the Act.

[54] 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].

[56] (2023) 280 CLR 137; [2023] HCA 37.

[57] NBMZ v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2009) 220 FCR 1; [2014] FCAFC 38 at [9]- [10], [177]-[178].

[58] TCXM v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 540 at [127] and [129].

[59] TCXM at [142]; see too KZYH and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] ARTA 1718 at [184].

[61] Full names of individuals have been redacted.