1. The Tribunal conducted a hearing of the Application on 8 and 9 January 2026 by video-conference. The Applicant was represented by Mr Kiran Marfatia of counsel. The Respondent was represented by Ms Sophia Xian a solicitor.
2. In conducting the review, the Tribunal had regard to:

(1) the documents produced to the Tribunal by the Respondent pursuant to section 501G of the Act, numbered G1 to G13 and paginated from pages 1 to 278 (G Documents), and further bundle of documents produced under summons sequentially numbered RB1 to RB8 and paginated from pages 1 to 44 (RB Documents);

(2) a Statement of Facts, Issues, and Contentions produced by the Applicant (ASFIC);

(3) a Statement of Facts, Issues, and Contentions produced by the Respondent (RSFIC );

(4) the Applicant's Reply submission (Reply);

(5) a written statement of Kathryn Njovu dated 24 December 2025 (Exhibit A1);

(6) records of video visits to the Applicant from Fulham Correction Centre dated 22 December 2025 (Exhibit A2);

(7) psychosocial report of Miguel Barreiro dated 9 December 2025 (Exhibit A3); and

(8) the oral evidence of

1. the Applicant;

2. Michael Njovu, the Applicant's father; and

3. Miguel Barreiro, psychologist.

1. Section 501CA(4)(b) of the Act enables the Tribunal on review to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation decision if it is satisfied that:

(i) the Applicant passes the character test (as defined by section 501); or

(ii) there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked.

1. Section 501(6)(a) provides that a person is deemed not to pass the character test if they have a 'substantial criminal record', which is relevantly defined in s.501(7)(c) and (d) to include having been sentenced a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more or to 2 or more terms of imprisonment, where the total of those terms is 12 months or more.
2. On 8 October 2024 the Applicant was sentenced by the County Court of Victoria in Melbourne in respect of the following offences:
   1. Attempt to Pervert the Course of Justice - 2 years imprisonment;
   2. Intentional Cause Injury - 15 months imprisonment (10 months to be served concurrently);
   3. Persist Contravene Family Violence NTC/Order - 14 months imprisonment (10 months to be served concurrently);
   4. Criminal Damage (Intent Damage/Destroy) - 2 months imprisonment to be served concurrently; and
   5. Unlawful Assault - 1 month imprisonment to be served concurrently.

1. As a result, the Applicant has a 'substantial criminal record' as defined in s. 501(7)(c) and (d). He therefore fails the character test under section 501(6)(a).
2. The Applicant concedes that he does not pass the character test, because of his 'substantial criminal record' (s 501(6)(a) of the Act), having been sentenced by a court in Australia to a term of two years and nine months imprisonment (s 501(7)(c) of the Act)[9].
3. Accordingly, the sole issue before the Tribunal is whether, under section 501CA(4)(b)(ii), there is another reason why the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's Visa should be revoked. That reason:

... must be a reason that carries sufficient weight or significance to satisfy the Minister entrusted with the responsibility to consider whether to revoke the visa cancellation that the decision should be revoked. Only a reason of that character enlivens the statutory power to revoke. It is the absence of such a reason that will result in a decision not to revoke a visa cancellation.[10]

1. On 7 June 2024, the Minister issued Direction No. 110 - Visa refusal and cancellation under s 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s 501CA (Direction 110) to commence operation from 21 June 2024. Direction 110 provides guidance for decision-makers in determining, relevantly, whether there is another reason why the cancellation of the Applicant's Visa should be revoked.
2. Section 499 of the Act authorises the Minister to give written directions to a person or body having functions or powers under that Act, provided that the directions are about the performance of those functions or the exercise of those powers. Section 499(2A) of the Act mandates that the Tribunal must comply with the direction.[11]
3. Paragraph 6 of Part 2 of Direction 110 provides that decision-makers must take into account the considerations identified in paragraphs 8 and 9 where relevant to the decision within the framework provided by the principles stated in paragraph 5.2.
4. Paragraph 8 of Part 2 sets out the five primary considerations:

(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. Paragraph 9(1) of Part 2 sets out other considerations. These include, but are not limited to:

1. Paragraph 7(2) provides that the primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations and specifically provides that the primary consideration of the protection of the Australian community is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations.

1. Paragraph 8.1(2) of Part 2 of Direction 110 requires decision-makers to give consideration 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.

Nature and Seriousness of the Applicant's Conduct to Date

1. A complete statement of the Applicant's criminal record as reported by the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission on 14 November 2024 is included in the G Documents.[12] The record includes the following convictions in the County Court of Victoria at Melbourne on 8 October 2024[13]:

Criminal Damage (Intent Damage/Destroy) - 2 months imprisonment to be served concurrently;

Unlawful Assault - 1 month imprisonment to be served concurrently;

Intentional Cause Injury - 15 months imprisonment (10 months to be served concurrently);

Persist Contravene Family Violence NTC/Order - 14 months imprisonment (10 months to be served concurrently); and

Attempt to Pervert the Course of Justice - 2 years imprisonment.

1. The Applicant sought leave in the Supreme Court of Victoria to appeal his sentence of 8 October 2024. On 28 April 2025 the Supreme Court dismissed the Applicant's application for leave to appeal sentence[14]. On 20 November 2025 the Applicant appealed the decision of the Supreme Court of 28 April 2025 and the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused by the Victorian Court of Appeal on 27 November 2025[15].
2. The G Documents include a statement by the New Zealand Police[16] that the Applicant has recorded convictions in New Zealand as follows:

10 May 2000 - conviction for common assault (12 December 1999) - fine $300

18 January 2001 - traffic conviction for exceeding breath alcohol level (30 December 2000) - fine $550 and disqualified from driving for 6 months.

1. The Tribunal gives little weight to these offences in assessing the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's conduct to date as it relates to the protection of the Australian community. The convictions relate to conduct over 25 years ago when the Applicant was barely 18 years of age and the circumstances of the offending are not known. The relevant consideration is the Applicant's conduct for which he was convicted on 8 October 2025.
2. His Honour Justice Maidment described the offending for which the Applicant was convicted on 8 October 2024 in his sentencing remarks as follows:

At the time of the offending you were 40 years of age and resided at an address in Queens Road, Melbourne. The victim in this matter was then 37 years of age.

You and your victim commenced an intimate relationship in about March of 2021. In April 2021 she moved into your Queens Road apartment.

On 7 May 2021, after returning from a friend's home, you and your victim were seated in her car which was parked outside the Queens Road address. You became angry and punched the windscreen of the vehicle three times, causing the windscreen to shatter. That is the subject of Charge 1 on the indictment.

The second incident, which involves the related summary offence of unlawful assault, occurred on 16 May 2021 when, during the course of the evening, you and your victim were at the Queens Road apartment after having drinks at a friend's house. You argued, and the next thing that your victim was aware of was waking up in a pool of blood with two gashes to the upper and lower left side of her lips. She recalled being in a lot of pain and asking you what had happened. You told her that you had punched her in the face. She attended the Alfred Hospital the following day and received stitches in the wounds that I have described.

The offence the subject of Charge 2 on the indictment of intentionally causing injury occurred on 22 August 2021 when you and your victim were at the Queens Road address drinking and listening to music at about 10.00 pm. Your victim made a comment about your mutual sexual relationship which apparently made you angry. While she was standing in the kitchen you approached her, grabbed her by the throat with two hands and threw her onto the floor where she hit her head. You then got on top of her, wrapped both of your hands around her throat and began strangling her so hard that she could not breathe. That lasted an estimated seven seconds. Your victim described feeling scared for her life.

After you finished choking her, you got off her. She was still lying on the kitchen floor. She attempted to calm you down. You then grabbed a hammer and told her that you would 'smash' her 'face in' if she 'didn't shut up.' You then told her to take off her clothes so you could send a photo to her friends to show 'what a whore' she was. She was terrified and complied with your demand. As a result of that incident your victim sustained redness and bruising around her neck and the underside of her chin, photographs of which were provided to me at the plea hearing.....

.. You were then bailed in relation to those incidents, and on 25 August 2021 you were served with a family violence safety notice which contained conditions prohibiting you from (a) committing family violence against your victim; (b) approaching, telephoning or otherwise contacting your victim unless in the company of a police officer; (c) being anywhere within five metres of her; (d) being at or within 200 metres of any place where she lived; and (e) causing another person to engage in the conduct that was prohibited by the notice.

On 3 November 2021 your victim attended the Prahran police station and made a statement of no complaint, which was put in writing and signed. In that statement she effectively withdrew all complaints against you.

She says in the third and last paragraph of the statement:

'I have since given this matter consideration and decided that I wish to withdraw the statement I made on 24 August 2021 because I wasn't in the right mental state when I made the statement and I was affected by alcohol.'

It is plain from a series of screenshots from your phone obtained by police that prior to, and it seems likely during, September of 2021 you and your victim resumed an intimate relationship. By 5 October 2021 you were seeking to persuade her to withdraw her complaints against you.

Indeed, on 5 October 2021, which was the commencement date for the third charge on the indictment of attempting to pervert the course of justice, you sent your victim a text message which was in effect a draft of a statement that you wanted her to make to the police. Your draft reads as follows:

'To whom it may concern. I would like to withdraw the statement I made on 24 August. The main reason for this is that the information I provided is not accurate and should not be used as evidence and/or anything regarding any related charges towards Marvin Njovu. My mental state, alcoholism and the fact that I was not taking my medication during the period leading up to the statement made, including an inaccurate statement, brought me to do the right thing and withdraw it. I want all the multiple charges towards Marvin Njovu dropped as they also are not accurate or relevant. The purpose and outcome of what I wanted has spiralled out of control and has impacted me more than I can take. Marvin and I are in a relationship and he has been the person supporting, helping and giving me strength each day. The statement was made during a moment of weakness, please withdraw my statement and drop all charges against my partner Marvin Njovu. Thank you.'

As the indictment alleges, you had by then engaged, and continued to engage, in a series of acts which had the tendency to pervert the course of justice and which were designed to persuade your victim to make a statement of no complaint. You persisted in that course of conduct through to 14 November 2021.

As the prosecution summary of opening points out, a later statement made by your victim indicated that she had been pressured into making that statement of no complaint and that she had text messages to prove it. Indeed, a number of text messages and screenshots were relied upon by the prosecution to support the contention that you had pressured her into writing a letter, through the text message that I have indicated, and to writing a letter to your lawyer stating that she wished to withdraw the charges. She indicated then that she was no longer in a relationship with you, and that since she made the statement of no complaint she realised that she was being coerced by you into making the statement for your own benefit.

On 27 December 2021 your victim attended the Knox police station and signed a further statement indicating that she was not persisting with the statement of no complaint. She indicated in that statement that there was an incident in November 2021 when you would not let her leave the flat. She indicated in the statement at paragraph 5:

'I now wish to withdraw my statement of no complaint because I realised Marvin was not being genuine.' She indicated that you had pressured her to do a statement of no complaint because 'it would help him.'

You were arrested on 11 January 2022, cautioned, taken to Prahran police station and interviewed. You were asked about the text messages sent to your victim from your phone and you responded in terms that your victim had been arrested by police for breaking into your home and stealing your phone and that she was the last person that had had your phone before it started having problems with hacking. You claimed that you told your victim that she needed to tell the truth so that people would understand what was going on about her mental health, alcoholism and lies.

You admitted you had seen a draft email on her phone about withdrawing charges and that you had told her to 'make sure that she was telling the truth.' You claimed that you had no reason to manipulate or change her mind. You agreed that you had sent her messages regarding information about the legal process. Based on an analysis of messages you had sent to your victim between 5 October 2021 and 14 November 2021, there were seven separate text messages and two emails.

You have pleaded guilty to the charge of persistent breach of the family violence intervention notice the subject of Charge 4 on the indictment.

1. The serious nature of the Applicant's criminal behaviour is reflected in the penalties prescribed for the offences. Maidment J. set out the maximum penalties for the five offences as follows:

The first charge is criminal damage, for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 10 years. The second charge is intentionally causing injury, for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 10 years. The third charge is attempting to pervert the course of justice, for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 25 years. The fourth charge is persistent contravention of family violence safety notice, for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for five years.....a related summary offence of unlawful assault for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for three months.[17]

1. Paragraphs 8.1.1(a)(i),(ii) and (iii) of Direction 110 requires the Tribunal to have regard to the view of the Australian government and the community that, inter alia, crimes of violence, crimes of violence against women and acts of domestic violence are to be viewed as very serious. The Applicant's convictions were for crimes of violence against his female partner, a person with whom he had an intimate personal relationship. Accordingly, his crimes of assault and intentionally causing injury satisfy the definition of domestic violence under s.4 of the Direction 110. In respect of these crimes the Tribunal is not required to consider the penalties imposed by the Courts. Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(c) requires that acts of family violence and crimes of violence and/or of a sexual nature against women are to be regarded as very serious irrespective of the sentence imposed and it is not appropriate for the Tribunal to have regard to the length of sentence in assessing its seriousness.[18]
2. In addition, paragraphs 8.1.1(1)(c)-(i) set out a range of factors decision-makers must consider in assessing the nature and seriousness of the criminal offending or other conduct to date.
3. There is no evidence that the Applicant was warned about the consequences of further offending in terms of his migration status as contemplated by paragraphs 8.1.1(1)(g)(h).
4. The Respondent notes that the Applicant failed to disclose his criminal record in New Zealand on two Incoming Passenger Cards dated 12 June 2017 and 7 June 2018 and asserts that this constitutes the provision of false or misleading information to the Department as contemplated by paragraphs 8.1.1(1)(g)(h). The Applicant explained in his oral evidence that he did not realise at the time he completed the cards that a conviction had been recorded in relation to either offence. Given this explanation and the considerable period of time between the Applicant's offending in New Zealand and the time at which he completed the Incoming Passenger Cards the Tribunal gives this little weight in assessing the seriousness of the Applicant's conduct to date.
5. The relevant considerations for the purposes in this case are:

(a) (b)

(c) the sentences imposed by the courts for crimes other than those prescribed in Paragraphs 8.1.1(a)(i),(ii) and (iii);

(d) the impact of the Applicant's offending on victims and their family;

(e) the frequency of the Applicant's offending; and

(f) the cumulative effect of any repeated offending.

1. The sentence imposed by the court for the offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice was 2 years imprisonment. The sentence was upheld on appeal by the Victorian Court of Appeal[19]. This is a substantial sentence. In handing down sentence Maidment J. stated:

It is clear from the maximum penalty, and generally, that the most serious of these offences is the offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice. Ordinarily such charges give rise to quite substantial terms of imprisonment. One of the aggravating features of this charge is that it is linked to a course of conduct involving domestic violence and seeking to escape the consequences of a course of violence and intimidation aimed at your victim.

The courts have made it very plain that general deterrence is a very significant sentencing consideration in relation to domestic violence offences. This offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice was aimed at shutting down the prosecution of you for the offences that gave rise to the charges of criminal damage and intentionally causing injury, and the related summary offence of unlawful assault[20].

1. Sentences involving terms of imprisonment are the last resort in the sentencing hierarchy and must be viewed as a reflection of the objective seriousness of the offences involved[21]. The Supreme Court in refusing leave to appeal sentence accepted that the Applicant's offending was very serious[22]. The Court of Appeal expressed the view that ..the sentences imposed on the applicant, and in particular those imposed in respect of the offences that were the subject of charges 2 and 3, could fairly be characterised as quite lenient.[23]
2. While the Applicant's offending was confined to a period of six months from May to November 2021 it was frequent and repeated conduct. It involved damage to property and two incidents of physical assault of the Applicant's partner resulting in her suffering physical injury and caused her to fear for her life. The offence of perverting the course of justice was repeated and prolonged conduct and the breaches of family violence orders was persistent. Such behaviour undermines the Australian justice system and demonstrates the Applicant's disregard for lawful authority in Australia.
3. The Applicant acknowledged in his ASFIC that the overall offending conduct is to be regarded as serious because it involved domestic violence. However, the Applicant asserted that the circumstances surrounding the attempt to pervert the course of justice were unsophisticated and should be placed at the bottom end of the scale of seriousness. It was further submitted that the attempt to pervert the course of justice was related to the domestic violence, and without the domestic violence offending, the Applicant would not have been charged or convicted of attempt to pervert the course of justice.
4. The Tribunal rejects this submission. The attempt to pervert the course of justice was a deliberate course of conduct by which the Applicant sought to escape the consequences of the violence and intimidation aimed at his victim. Whether or not it was sophisticated is not to the point. While it is connected to the domestic violent offences it is a quite separate crime.
5. The Applicant also sought to diminish the seriousness of his offending by claiming in the ASFIC that he led a productive life in the community in the period between his release from remand on 28 July 2023 his conviction in the County Court on 21 August 2024 and that he had not offended for over two years and nine months since the date of the last offending.
6. The conduct of the Applicant after the offending may be a consideration in assessing the risk of re-offending but it is not relevant to an assessment of the seriousness of the offending itself.
7. Having regard to all of these matters, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant's past criminal conduct was very serious.

The risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious misconduct

1. Paragraph 8.1.2(2) of Part 2 of Direction 110 requires the decision-maker, in assessing whether the Applicant represents an unacceptable risk of harm to the Australian community, to have regard, cumulatively, to:

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

(8) the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account available information and evidence on the risk of the applicant reoffending.

1. The harm resulting from the Applicant's conduct was serious and should it be repeated would cause substantial harm to individual members of the Australian community and to the community as a whole.
2. The conduct involved serious physical and psychological harm to the victim.
3. Justice Maidment noted in his sentencing remarks that the victim sustained significant injuries in the assault on 16 May 2021. She was punched in the face by the Applicant and woke up on the floor in a pool of blood having sustained two gashes to the upper and lower left side of her lips. She was in a lot of pain and attended the Alfred Hospital the following day to receive stitches to the wounds.
4. In the incident on 22 August 2021the victim was grabbed by the throat and thrown to the floor where she hit her head. The Applicant got on top of her, wrapped both of his hands around her throat and began strangling her for an estimated seven seconds so hard that she could not breathe. The victim was scared for her life. While the victim was still lying on the floor the Applicant grabbed a hammer and told her that he would 'smash' her 'face in' if she 'didn't shut up.' He forced her to remove her clothes so that he could send a photo to her friends to show 'what a whore' she was. The victim was terrified and sustained redness and bruising around her neck and the underside of her chin.
5. The victim provided a victim impact statement to the Court which ..speaks of the effects of (the Applicant's) conduct upon her, both the physical wounds which she indicates would heal, but that the emotional scars remain. She finishes with the sentence: 'This crime has changed the way I live my life. I hope that in considering the sentence the court will recognise the lasting impact it has had on me[24].
6. Further, the Applicant's conduct in attempting to subvert the course of justice and in repeated breaches of family violence safety notices threatens the general good order of the society as a whole and should it be repeated would cause substantial harm to the welfare of the Australian community.

1. The Applicant asserted in his ASFIC that the likelihood of him re offending is virtually non-existent, although in oral submissions his counsel asserted that the risk was a low risk as the Applicant is now not the same person as he was when he offended_._ The Applicant raised a number of issues for consideration in relation to assessing the risk of re-offending. These can be paraphrased as:
   1. During the period from 28 July 2023 when he was released from remand on bail until his trial on 21 August 2024, the Applicant led a productive life in the community and was not involved in further offending.

It is now two years and nine months since the date of the last offending.

The offending took place over a very short period of time in a short relationship of a similar duration.

The Applicant was previously married to another person for a number of years and no offending of that kind was alleged.

There is no indication of an escalating pattern of offending, and aside from the initial and very short period of offending, there has been no subsequent recurrence.

It was accepted by the County Court that the Applicant has a good prospect of rehabilitation, and his chance of re-offending is very low. Maidment J. stated in his sentencing remarks:

It was submitted that your prospects of rehabilitation are good. I accept that you clearly are an intelligent and business-orientated person with work experience suggesting that you have every prospect of resuming a successful business career.......it is submitted on your behalf that it was a business that was aimed at helping people, and that, at least as an expression of your sentiment, would suggest that that is a creditable activity1. 10.

1. Psychologist Miguel Barreiro, has reported that the Applicant's offending is best understood as arising from untreated depression, unresolved losses, relational volatility, and substance-affected judgment rather than entrenched antisocial traits, and based on ten weeks of structured clinical assessment and ongoing therapeutic contact, together with review of collateral material and his conduct in custody, it is his professional opinion that the Applicant presently represents a low risk of harm to the Australian community when released, provided he continues to engage with appropriate community-based supports[25].

2. The Applicant has attended and completed a 15 out of 20 sessions in a 20-Week Men's Behaviour Change Program which commenced on Wednesday, 13 September 2023 and concluded on Wednesday 21 February 2024. The Applicant's ongoing counselling sessions in custody demonstrate that he has successfully addressed the underlying issues that contributed to the brief offending period in 2021and the effectiveness of his rehabilitation is confirmed by this sustained period of law-abiding conduct and clear motivation to reform during his time in the community, while awaiting trial.

3. The Applicant has shown remorse in relation to this offending; and

4. The Applicant maintained good character for approximately two decades, from the early 2000s until 2021, during which he led a law-abiding and productive life.

1. In assessing the risk of reoffending, the Tribunal is mindful of the comments of the Full Court of the Federal Court in CKL21 v Minister for Home Affairs that in curial and administrative decision-making, the task of assessing the degree of likelihood of an event occurring in the future 'must be based on a logical process of reasoning based on the known facts'.[26]
2. Accordingly, the Tribunal has approached the assessment of risk having regard to a series of factors_._

1. It is relevant that the Applicant's offending is not constituted by a single offence. His convictions on 8 October 2024 were for multiple offences involving violence or aggressive behaviour. His conviction for attempting to subvert the course of justice was committed after he had been charged with the family violence offences and while he was on bail. The offence involved a concerted attempt to coerce his partner to withdraw her complaints in order to enable him to escape the consequences of a course of violence and intimidation. His admitted breaches of the family violence safety notice were persistent and in the face of pending charges for family violence. This offending is set in the context of other prior anti-social behaviour in New Zealand when he was a young man[27].
2. The nature of the offending raises issues of character. The assaults on the Applicant's partner involved the infliction of physical injury and pain but also included threats of further violence (involving the brandishing of a hammer) and the intentional humiliation of the victim (forcing her to remove her clothes so that he could send a photograph to her friends). The Court of Appeal described the Applicant's conduct in this respect as shameful and cowardly[28]. The attempted perversion of justice offence was by its nature deliberately dishonest. In addition, as the Court of Appeal observed_, .. the conduct by the applicant, that was the subject of charge 3, involved him seeking to evade the legal consequences of his violent conduct against the complainant by emotionally manipulating her, so that she blamed herself for the allegations that were the subject of the charges against the applicant[29]._
3. The Applicant's admitted persistent breaches of the family violence safety notice indicates a lack of respect for Australian law.
4. The Applicant has claimed that there were no allegations of any domestic violence offending during his earlier marriage. This claim is unsupported by any corroborating evidence, although there is no evidence to suggest that there were any such allegations.

The Applicant ..consistently expressed remorse and shame regarding his actions, describing himself as ashamed, remorseful, and inadequate, and reporting a sense of emotional numbness when reflecting on the offending and its consequences.

He stated there is not a day that passes without feeling remorse for the harm caused to his former partner, .. and to others, and he recounted a tearful apology when he first saw her after the incident[30].

He recognises the impact of his actions on others, expresses a desire to make amends, and has engaged in counselling and rehabilitative work to address contributory factors[31].

1. Mr Barreiro acknowledged in his oral evidence that words alone are not conclusive of genuine remorse but be said he was satisfied that the Applicant was genuine having observed his body language and noting that he was physically moved when expressing his remorse.
2. The Applicant's father and his sister both stated that the Applicant is remorseful
3. The Tribunal does not accept that the Applicant's attempts to appeal his sentence indicate any lack of remorse or that they show he lacks insight into the nature of his offending. It is the Applicant's right to pursue his appeal rights.
4. However, the genuineness of the Applicant's statements of remorse can be assessed having regard to his conduct at the time of his offending and afterwards.
5. The Applicant's offending conduct was repeated. He did not demonstrate any remorse at having initially damaging the victim's car by punching out the windscreen when, less than 10 days later, he inflicted significant injury on her by punching her in the face. Then several months later he again subjected his partner to a second assault.
6. Having been charged with offences related to these incidents the Applicant sought to avoid the consequences of his actions by pressuring the victim to withdraw her complaints. In his oral evidence the Applicant sought to diminish his responsibility for this course of events by attributing the motivation for the offending to the victim. He claimed that it was the victim who approached him saying she wished to withdraw her complaint against him in order to make things right in their relationship. He said he was reluctant to do so but sent her an email with some bullet points to assist her to draft the withdrawal. This explanation is inconsistent with the findings of the Court which found his conduct involved a concerted attempt to coerce his partner to withdraw her complaints in order to enable him to escape the consequences of a course of violence and intimidation.
7. The Applicant's repeated breaches of a family violence safety notice imposed after the two assaults is not consistent with genuine remorse.
8. The Applicant confirmed in his oral evidence that he had not taken any action to atone for his conduct towards his victim and has not contacted her since his trial.
9. On 28 July 2023 the Applicant was granted bail pending trial on condition that he attend and complete in a 20-Week Men's Behaviour Change Program on 13 - 21 September 2023 [32]. The Applicant attended only 15 of the 20 sessions required for the Program[33]. In his oral evidence the Applicant explained his failure to complete the full course by claiming he could not get internet access.
10. The court records show that the Applicant plead guilty to all charges. However, his plea was not entered until after the victim was subjected to cross examination in December 2024 (2 years after the offending). Maidment J. noted in his sentencing remarks

It was submitted that you had entered a plea to the charges at the earliest opportunity. Discussion this morning has shown that there was cross examination of your victim in December 2023, two years after the offending conduct. That that seemed to be designed to challenge a number of the factual statements she made which support the charges to which you have pleaded guilty. Ultimately, the plea agreement that was reached between yourself and the prosecution did not alter the principal charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice, unlawful assault, intentionally causing injury and persistent contravention of family violence safety notice[34].

Your plea of guilty is undoubtedly a valuable plea and it has saved your victim from further cross-examination and the stress of a trial. It is also consistent with remorse. Other than that, I have not seen much evidence of remorse, but in any event the plea has significant utilitarian value ..[35]

1. Having regard to these matters the Tribunal accepts that the Applicant may regret having offended but the Tribunal does not accept that the Applicant's expressions of remorse for the victim are heartfelt

1. The Applicant asserted that he had maintained good character for approximately two decades, from the early 2000s until 2021, during which he led a law-abiding and productive life.
2. Justice Maidment accepted that there were positive aspects to the Applicant's life prior to his offending. He noted in handing down sentence:

When you finished secondary school you wanted to start your own business and you started selling mobile phones from home as an agent for major telecommunications companies. You taught yourself to become a business entrepreneur.

You were later employed by various businesses, which included Hill McGlynn and Think and Grow, as a business consultant. You later became a business development manager for Bend, a business consultant for Trade Track, a senior advertising sales manager for MondoConneX and managing director for a business called Proceido.

You have been married. You and your ex-wife formed a company called MNC Group, which was an employment and recruitment company. You have a son by your previous marriage and your counsel indicated that he turns nine in November of this year. You see your son on a regular basis and you have had an amicable separation from your ex-wife. It was submitted that for that and other reasons, your son continues to have a positive experience with both his parents[36].

While these positive aspects of the Applicant's life indicate a pro-social disposition they relate essentially to an absence of criminal conviction and the Applicant's financial support for himself and his family and his assumption of responsibility for his son. The Applicant has not produced any substantial evidence of any contribution to the community in a wider sense nor of any constructive relationships with individual members of the community. His conduct over the period must be considered in the context of his conduct in May - November 2021 resulting in convictions on 8 October 2024, his offences in New Zealand in 1999 and 2000 and his admitted possession and use of illicit drugs at various times throughout his time in Australia. 2. The Applicant further asserted that during the period from 28 July 2023 when he was released from remand on bail until his trial on 21 August 2024, he led a productive life in the community and was not involved in further offending. 3. The timeline related to the Applicant's incarceration is: 1. The family violence offending occurred on 7 May to 22 August 2021.

The Applicant was arrested and charged with those offences and released on bail on 24 August 2021.

On 25 August 2021 the Applicant was served with a family violence safety notice.

Further offences related to breaches of family violence safety notice and the attempt to pervert the course of justice committed between 25 August 2021 and November 2021.

The Applicant was arrested on 13 April 2023 and charged with the further offences and remanded in custody.

On 28 July 2023 the Applicant was granted bail pending trial[37].

On 21 August 2024 Applicant was convicted and held on remand awaiting sentence on 8 October 2024[38].

The Applicant has remained in prison since 8 October 2024 serving his sentence and is eligible for release on parole on 6 March 2026[39]. 4. While the Applicant's clean record during the period he was on bail between July 2023 and August 2024 is a positive indication that he is capable of living a pro-social life if released into the community the Tribunal gives it limited weight. First, the period is relatively short, being only 13 months. Secondly, the Applicant was awaiting trial and subject to bail conditions, which he described as tough conditions initially. There was also a family violence safety notice in place during this period. In his oral evidence the Applicant claimed he was essentially homeless during the period and was living with his girlfriend and that he worked irregularly. 5. The Applicant also claimed in his oral evidence that while in prison he is a trusted prisoner who has been permitted to run an exercise program for other prisoners, that he has a 'C' security rating and lives in cottage accommodation. It is unfortunate that the Fulham Correctional Centre at which the Applicant is held did not respond to a summons to produce documents relevant to the Applicant's prison record. In the absence of prison records the Tribunal accepts the Applicant's evidence that he has conducted himself responsibly while in prison and has displayed a positive attitude.

1. The Court of Appeal considered that the tendency of the Applicant to resort to substances when dealing with difficult relationships and grief is a factor that can be properly regarded as an aggravating feature of his offending[40]
2. The Applicant stated in his oral evidence that he began using alcohol as a teenager in New Zealand and as an adult he consumed alcohol socially one or two nights per week, usually on Friday or Saturday. He said he used cocaine recreationally two or three times a year from about 21 years of age. He said that he had experimented with methamphetamine on two occasions. He said that his drug and alcohol use increased significantly at about the time of the COVID 19 pandemic.
3. The Applicant provided two reports prepared by a psychologist Mr Barreiro who had treated the Applicant by online counselling while he has been in prison.
4. The Respondent contends that the Tribunal should place less weight on Mr Barreiro's findings, because the Court of Appeal found Mr Barreiro's report to be inadmissible and the contents of the report to have little to no bearing on the sentence imposed on the Applicant. The Tribunal rejects this submission and accepts that the expert evidence of Mr Barreiro is relevant to the assessment of the Applicant's prospects of rehabilitation, ongoing risk to the community, and insight into his behaviours. It is to be accorded appropriate weight. That his report was inadmissible in the Court of Appeal on the question of the criminal sentence is irrelevant to the issue before the Tribunal.
5. Mr Barreiro reported that the Applicant had stated to him that he had ...

...a history of drinking and limited recreational substance use in adulthood. However, he stated that the use increased and became problematic primarily in the period of the COVID-19 lockdowns (2020-2021) and in the context of a toxic relationship with his ex-partner,.... He describes this period as a "melting pot" of stressors in which mental health concerns, alcohol consumption, cocaine use, and relationship conflict combined to destabilise his functioning.

He acknowledges using cocaine during this period and maintains that the use was situational rather than addictive, noting that conflict within the relationship occurred both with and without drug involvement.

He reports experimenting with methamphetamine on two occasions with his ex- partner. He states that alcohol was consumed frequently during the relationship, often in conjunction with cocaine, and recognises that alcohol intensified volatility and impaired his capacity for appropriate emotional regulation.

1. The Applicant's father described the Applicant's substance abuse in his written statement:

As a father and medically trained person, I noticed Marvin had difficulties getting over the death of his mother with whom he had a close bond. He previously used to drink alcohol socially but over the years since this event I noticed uncontrolled drinking and the delusions and hallucinations that he started having pointed to additional drug use. He slowly lost connection to values and loved ones that he previously held dear to his heart such as his connection to his wife and family and he lost his business and accommodation. He now started spending more time with drug addicts and drifters[41].

1. The Applicant's father acknowledged in his oral evidence that he had suspicions regarding the Applicant's drug use but no real evidence and that he did not raise the issue with the Applicant because he did not have any proof. He conceded that his statement that the Applicant was spending time with drug addicts and drifters was based on an incident where he was asked by the Applicant to pick up something from a person whom he knew to be a bad person. He also knew another associate of the Applicant who was a bad person.
2. Mr Barreiro identified several factors contributing to the Applicant's substance abuse at the time of his offending, primarily; the COVID-19 lockdowns (2020-2021), the toxic relationship with his partner and the sudden death of the Applicant's mother in 2012. He said:

.. the sudden death of the Applicant's mother in 2012 removed his primary source of emotional support and cohesion and was followed by more formal and infrequent contact with his father and sister. This bereavement left unresolved grief and reduced access to familial buffering, creating a persistent vulnerability to low mood and isolation; the Applicant demonstrated a pattern consistent with chronic depression and persistent hopelessness, with strong associations to major depressive disorder transient paranoid ideation, dysthymia, and that trauma-related symptoms were prominent during assessment

3. Barriero diagnosis of the Applicant during the period of the offending is set out in his report 18 September 2025[42]:

Major depressive disorder, single episode, severe, with anxious distress; DSM5-TR 296.23 (F32.2). The index depressive episode emerged and intensified across 2018 2021 in the context of cumulative losses (marital breakdown, loss of daily contact with his son, business failure) and COVID-19 constraints, with prominent anxiety, insomnia, hyperarousal, and impaired functioning.

Alcohol use disorder, mild, 2020-2021, in sustained remission (≥ 2 years), in a controlled environment; DSM5-TR 305.00 (F10.10). Alcohol was used as a primary coping strategy during the index period and contributed to disinhibition and mood deterioration; there is no current use in custody.

Cocaine use disorder, mild, 2020-2021, in sustained remission (≥ 2 years), in a controlled environment; DSM5-TR 305.60 (F14.10). Episodic stimulant use occurred during the high-conflict relationship and amplified arousal and reactivity; there is no current use in custody

Other specified stimulant-related disorder (methamphetamine), limited experimentation with clinically meaningful effects during 2020-2021, now in sustained remission (≥ 2 years), in a controlled environment; F15.89. Reported methamphetamine use was brief (two occasions) yet contextually relevant to disinhibition during the period

Overall, the depressive disorder is the principal diagnosis; alcohol and stimulant use in 2020-2021 functioned as maladaptive, situational coping that exacerbated symptom severity and impaired judgment. All substance-related conditions are historical and currently in sustained remission in custody. K[81]-[85]

1. The Applicant claims to have abstained from drug and alcohol use for at least the last 3 years and that he has returned consistently negative urine tests while in prison. He says he is now not interested in drugs or alcohol.
2. He attended 15 of the 20 sessions required for the 20-Week Men's Behaviour Change Program on 13 - 21 September 2023 [43]. The program organiser provided a letter to the Supreme Court on 8 August 2024 stating that the Applicant had demonstrated a strong engagement with the group's objectives and participated actively in discussions, although noting that his attendances were fragmented, culminating in the number of sessions he missed[44]. The Applicant explained that his failure to attend 5 session of the program was due to him not having internet access as he was virtually homeless, living with friends on an ad hoc basis after breaking up with his girlfriend.
3. The Applicant stated that he completed a 15-session lifestyle program and a 2 day release-related harm reduction course while in prison, but had not undertaken any courses specifically related to drug and alcohol, domestic violence or violent offending generally.
4. In addition, the Applicant has participated in ten online psychological counselling sessions with Mr Barreiro while in prison between July and December 2025.
5. Mr Barreiro assessed the Applicant's rehabilitation prospects in his report of 18 September as follows:

In my opinion, the client's rehabilitation prospects are favourable, provided post release supports are practical, time-limited, and oriented to rapid community reintegration rather than high-intensity treatment. He has already completed a de facto period of detoxification and rehabilitation while in custody. He reports nearly three years of abstinence, consistently clear custodial tests, and completion of a drug program, and a partially completed men's behaviour program.

His day-to-day presentation has been lucid and goal-directed, and he has received positive feedback from correctional employment supervisors. These indicators support the view that residential rehabilitation or intensive substance treatment is not clinically indicated at this stage and would likely be counterproductive.

The primary ongoing needs are not addiction treatment but targeted work on mood, grief, sleep, and interpersonal regulation. The depressive and anxiety features that developed across years of accumulated losses are expected to improve further with structured, brief, skills-based psychotherapy focused on grief processing, relapse-prevention planning for alcohol, sleep restoration, and communication under stress. He has demonstrated insight into prior relationship triggers and a commitment to prosocial goals, including parenting and employment, which function as protective factors. 105. Return to work is central to his recovery and identity. He is motivated to resume full-time employment as soon as practicable after release.[102]-[105]

1. The Applicant has a small family in Australia comprising his father and his sister. He also has a constructive relationship with his ex-wife and he has played an active parental role for their son who is 10 years old[45].
2. The Applicant's father, who is currently the Director of Rehabilitation Medicine for Albury Wodonga Health in Victoria, indicated that he will provide support to the Applicant. He stated in his written statement:

He has ongoing psychology support to help him manage stressors in his life in a positive fashion rather than in a self-destructive manner. I plan to offer him both financial and emotional assistance after his release from jail, and I will maintain this support until he is able to regain his independence. Marvin fell in with a bad crowd and developed addictive habits that led to poor decisions. Unlike many such young people, Marvin is lucky in that he does not come from a dysfunctional drug addicted family that would only fuel his drug addiction and bad behaviours. Marvin comes from a good family, ...

He said in his oral evidence that he has assisted the Applicant financially by paying for his accommodation in the period while he was on bail awaiting trial, had provided him with a car and had arranged and paid for the counselling with Mr Barreiro.

1. The Applicant's sister indicated her support for the Applicant in her brief written statement but acknowledges that the Applicant needs assistance to become a useful member of the community.
2. The Applicant has valuable work experience. He started out selling mobile phones from home as an agent for major telecommunication companies. He was then employed by various businesses before forming his own company MMC Group, an employment and recruitment company. The company was co-directed by his then wife. It has now ceased business. Shortly before his convictions he was in the early stages of establishing an NDIS business aimed at helping people with special needs to connect with professionals such as medical practitioners, counsellors and psychologists.
3. The Applicant said in his oral evidence that he had broken off his relationship with his girlfriend prior to being convicted. He did not produce any evidence of any support in the community outside his family. He said that if he is released on parole he thought his parole conditions would not be attractive to a future employer, but he was enthusiastic about setting up a business and may follow up on his NDIS idea. He said he intended to spend time with his son, attend to his own health and see his father and sister.
4. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant's father gave evidence that he is a busy professional who spends the weekdays working in Albury Wodonga and only visits Melbourne on the weekend. He stated that he would not have the Applicant stay with him but would support him to obtain his own accommodation. He stated that the Applicant's sister had a significant medical condition which had required substantial operations.

1. Dr Miguel Barriero offered the following assessment of risk in his report of 9 December 2025:

Based on ten weeks of structured clinical assessment and ongoing therapeutic contact, together with review of collateral material and his conduct in custody, it is my professional opinion that Mr. Njovu presently represents a low risk of harm to the Australian community when released, provided he continues to engage with appropriate community-based supports.

1. In his oral evidence Mr Barreiro confirmed that he had seen the Applicant for between 10 and 12 sessions between 30 July and early December 2025 and that approximately 60% of the time had been devoted to an assessment of the Applicant's mental condition and the remaining 40% to therapy. He described this as very brief and said he required much more time with the Applicant to fully understand what was needed for the Applicant to avoid further offending. Mr Barreiro also confirmed that his assessment of the risk of re-offending was not based on the application of any forensic psychological tests but was based on his experience in treating offenders. He acknowledged that he is not an accredited clinical psychologist. He said he had a sense that the Applicant would not re-offend and was quite confident that the Applicant could apply the tools he had learned in therapy to do so, provided he did not revert to drug and alcohol use and continued to participate in psychological therapy.
2. Mr Barreiro acknowledged that the Applicant could re-offend in circumstances where he was involved in a volatile relationship and said that is a reason why he requires ongoing therapy.
3. Justice Maidment J, commented in his sentencing remarks on the prospect of rehabilitation:

It was submitted that your prospects of rehabilitation are good. I accept that you clearly are an intelligent and business-orientated person with work experience suggesting that you have every prospect of resuming a successful business career. I am not sure the evidence of your most recent business activity suggests that that was, by the time you went into custody at any rate, particularly well-developed or successful, but nevertheless it is submitted on your behalf that it was a business that was aimed at helping people, and that, at least as an expression of your sentiment, would suggest that that is a creditable activity.[46]

1. The Applicant has engaged in very serious criminal offending over a six-month period involving multiple offences. The nature of his offences raises questions about his character. He has acted violently toward his partner and has sought to humiliate her and pressure her to make false statements so that he could avoid the consequences of his actions. He has been dishonest and has demonstrated a disregard for the law.
2. He has expressed remorse for his conduct but his actions at the time of his offending and since indicate that his remorse is not heartfelt.
3. While he has demonstrated that he is capable of living a pro-social life, he has not presented evidence of a deep involvement in the community to balance against his involvement in criminal activity and anti-social drug related behaviour.
4. His most recent offending has been affected by an underlying depressive disorder, associated anxiety, insomnia, hyperarousal and impaired functioning, with his abuse of alcohol and illicit drugs being an aggravating feature of his offending. While the Applicant has taken some steps to address these issues, and particularly in abstaining from drug and alcohol use and commencing counselling, Mr Barreiro confirmed that the Applicant's rehabilitation is far from complete and he requires ongoing counselling and support. Paragraph 8.1(2)(b) of Direction 110 requires the Tribunal to consider evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of its decision.
5. The Applicant has limited support in the community, principally his father and sister. He has a relationship with his son which will act as a positive influence. He also has experience and business skills which will assist him to obtain employment. However, he has had family support and responsibilities for his son and paid employment in the past but those factors did not prevent him from offending.
6. The professional opinion of Mr Barreiro is that the Applicant represents a low risk of harm to the Australian community when released, provided he continues to engage with appropriate community-based supports. This assessment is not based on objective psychological testing and Mr Barreiro acknowledged that he is not an accredited clinical psychologist. His assessment is also qualified by the expectation that the Applicant will continue to engage with appropriate support. Justice Maidment accepted that the Applicant had every prospect of resuming a successful business career, but he did not offer a more general opinion as to the prospects of the Applicant avoiding further offending. The Tribunal gives these professional assessments significant weight but it is not bound by those assessments and must reach its own conclusions.
7. Having considered all of the matters set out above, the Tribunal is satisfied that there is at least a moderate risk that, if released into the community, the Applicant will commit further offences of a violent nature, particularly in the context of any future domestic situation, and that this may lead to further offences of the kind for which he was convicted on 8 October 2024. This risk must be weighed against the nature of his past offending which was very serious and if repeated would threaten significant physical and psychological harm to members of the Australian community and to the good order of the society as a whole.
8. The protection of the Australian community is a primary consideration under Direction 110 and paragraph 8.1(1) identifies the safety of the Australian community as the highest priority of the Australian Government. Accordingly, the Tribunal gives this consideration substantial weight in favour of not revoking the cancellation of the Applicant's Visa.

The Government has serious concerns about conferring on non-citizens who engage in family violence the privilege of entering or remaining in Australia. The Government's concerns in this regard are proportionate to the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the non-citizen.

1. Paragraph 4(1) of Direction 110 defines family violence to mean violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person's family (the family member) or causes the family member to be fearful. The definition relevantly, includes, assault and sexual assault or sexually abusive behaviour and intentionally damaging or destroying property.
2. A member of the person's family, for the purposes of the definition of family violence, includes a person who has, or has had, an intimate personal relationship with the relevant person.
3. The sentencing remarks of Justice Maidment record that the Applicant and the victim were in an intimate relationship and living together in the Applicant's apartment at the time of the Applicant committed the offences for which he was convicted on 8 October 2024[47]. The victim was therefore a member of the Applicant's family at all relevant times.
4. The Applicant's conduct on 7 May 2021 in punching the windscreen of the victim's car and shattering the windscreen amounted to intentionally damaging or destroying property and was threatening behaviour. It meets the definition of family violence.
5. The Applicant's conduct on 16 May 2021 (an unlawful assault) and on 22 August 2021 (intentionally causing injury) both involve violence and meet the definition of family violence.
6. The Applicant's conduct over the period in October to November 2021 for which the Applicant was convicted on the charge of attempt to pervert the course of justice was found by the court to involve the Applicant pressuring the victim to make a statement of no complaint[48]. It was conduct by the Applicant which coerced the victim and meets the definition of family violence.
7. Paragraph 8.2(3) of Direction 110 provides:

In considering the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the non-citizen, the following factors must be considered where relevant:

a) the frequency of the non-citizen's conduct and/or whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness;

b) the cumulative effect of repeated acts of family violence;

c) rehabilitation achieved at time of decision since the person's last known act of family violence, including:

1. the extent to which the person accepts responsibility for their family violence related conduct;

2. the extent to which the non-citizen understands the impact of their behaviour on the abused and witness of that abuse (particularly children);

3. efforts to address factors which contributed to their conduct; and

d) Whether the non-citizen has re-offended since being formally warned, or since otherwise being made aware by a Court, law enforcement or other authority, about the consequences of further acts of family violence, noting that the absence of a warning should not be considered to be in the non citizen's favour. This includes warnings about the non-citizen's migration status, should the non-citizen engage in further acts of family violence.

1. The family violence by the Applicant was repeated and escalated in the sense that the incident on 7 May 2021 did not involve physical violence to the victim, only property damage. The incident on 16 May 2021 involved significant injury to the victim and the incident on 22 August 2021 was more serious than each of the earlier incidents. The attempt to pervert the course of justice which occurred later did not involve violence but in terms of criminality it represented an escalation in seriousness as reflected in the sentences imposed by the court.
2. The victim impact statement tendered to the court for the purpose of sentencing included the following statement of the cumulative effect of the Applicant's offending:

'This crime has changed the way I live my life. I hope that in considering the sentence the court will recognise the lasting impact it has had on me.'[49]

1. There is evidence of steps taken by the Applicant by way of rehabilitation. He attended 15 out of a 20 sessions of a Men's Behaviour Change Program between 13 September and 21 February 2024 in which it was reported that the Applicant was one of the more active participants within the course, that his contributions to group discussions were thoughtful and reflective, and he exhibited a willingness to understand the impact of his behaviour on others. However, the weight to be given to this is diminished by the fact that the Applicant's attendance was a condition of his bail and he failed to attend 25 % of the course. He claimed that he was unable to attend five of the sessions because he did not have internet access. He confirmed in his oral evidence that he completed a Positive Lifestyle and a Release program while in prison but has not undertaken any program specific to family violence offending or violent offending generally. The Applicant has participated in 10-12 psychological counselling sessions online while in prison, but the counselling was not directed specifically at his family violence offending.
2. The Applicant has made statements in these proceedings and in court proceedings accepting responsibility for his family violence conduct. He has also expressed remorse, the Tribunal is not satisfied, for reasons discussed, that his remorse is heartfelt.
3. There is a paucity of evidence from the Applicant that he understands the extent of the impact of his behaviour on the victim.
4. The Applicant has addressed factors contributing to his family violence conduct. He has sought counselling to address his underlying depressive condition and substance abuse. He has also refrained from the consumption of alcohol and drugs for approximately 3 years, although for a significant proportion of that period he has been under supervision in custody or subject to bail conditions and with court proceedings pending.
5. The Tribunal is not aware of any formal warnings to the Applicant regarding further acts of family violence, although he was made subject to a family violence safety notice on 25 August 2021 contained conditions prohibiting him from (a) committing family violence against his victim; (b) approaching, telephoning or otherwise contacting his victim unless in the company of a police officer; (c) being anywhere within five metres of her; (d) being at or within 200 metres of any place where she lived; and (e) causing another person to engage in the conduct that was prohibited by the notice. The Applicant's conduct over the period in October to November 2021 for which the Applicant was convicted on the charge of attempt to pervert the course of justice involved contraventions of this notice.
6. The factors set out in Paragraph 8.2(3) of Direction 110 must be considered but they are not exclusive.
7. An additional relevant consideration in this case is the extent of the injuries suffered by the victim in each case.
8. In the incident on 16 May 2021 (an unlawful assault) the victim was punched in the face and knocked to the floor losing consciousness and suffering cuts to her lips requiring stitches. She suffered a lot of pain.
9. In the incident on 22 August 2021 (intentionally causing injury) the victim was thrown to the floor striking her head, she was sat on while on the floor, was strangled so hard that she could not breathe for 7 seconds, threatened with having her face smashed with a hammer and forced to take her clothes off so that a photograph could be sent to her friends. The victim was terrified. Apart from the physical injuries and the fear experienced by the victim, an additional relevant consideration in assessing the seriousness of the family violence in this case, is the humiliation inflicted on the victim in having the picture of her naked body sent to friends by the Applicant.
10. Applying the principles stated in paragraph 8.2(3) of Direction 110, and the further considerations identified, the Tribunal assesses the family violence engaged in by the Applicant as very serious.
11. The commission of family violence is a primary consideration under Direction 110, and given the seriousness of the Applicant's offending it weighs heavily against revocation in his case.

The Strength, Nature and Duration of Ties to Australia

1. Paragraph 8.3 of Part 2 of Direction 110 requires that decision-makers:

(1) ... 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) ... 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. The Tribunal accepts that the interests of the following members of the Applicant's family residing in Australia would be adversely affected by a decision not to revoke the cancellation of his Visa: Michael Njovu (the Applicant's father); Feluna Njovu (his sister); and Austin Alexzander Njovu (the Applicant's son). The Applicant's father and sister have provided letters in support of revoking the cancellation decision and expressing the negative effect it would have on them if he were not allowed to remain in Australia. His sister stated in her letter that of the Applicant is deported to New Zealand our small nuclear family consisting of him, Dad and I would be devastated and further diminished.[50]
2. The interests of the Applicant's son are considered separately as a primary consideration but the Tribunal notes the written statement of the Applicant's ex-wife regarding the concerns of her son. The Tribunal also notes the evidence regarding the shared parenting between the Applicant and his ex-wife and accepts that there would be negative consequences for her if the Applicant were not allowed to remain in Australia.
3. The Applicant has provided little evidence of further ongoing personal ties to Australia, but the Tribunal can accept that after 25 years in the country the Applicant has established relationships with Australian citizens and others who have a right to remain in the country. The Court record indicates that the Applicant also has a long record of employment and business ownership in Australia.
4. The Applicant is not a person who began offending shortly after arriving in the country and he has made a positive contribution to the community through his employment and business dealings and in playing a positive role in the parenting of his son.
5. For these reasons the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant has strong and enduring ties to Australia which warrant substantial weight in favour of revoking the cancellation of his Visa. This is a primary consideration under Direction 110.

Best Interests of Minor Children affected by the Decision

1. Paragraph 8.4(1) of Part 2 of Direction 110 requires that decision-makers must make a determination about whether refusal under section 501 or non-revocation under section 501CA is, or is not, in the best interests of a child affected by the decision.
2. In considering the best interests of the child, paragraph 8.4(4) requires specific factors to be considered. The consideration of the factors relevant in this case are set out below:

a) the nature and duration of the relationship between the child and the non-citizen. Less weight should generally be given where the relationship is non-parental, and/or there is no existing relationship and/or there have been long periods of absence, or limited meaningful contact (including whether an existing Court order restricts contact);

b) the extent to which the non-citizen is likely to play a positive parental role in the future, taking into account the length of time until the child turns 18, and including any Court orders relating to parental access and care arrangements;

c) the impact of the non-citizen's prior conduct, and any likely future conduct, and whether that conduct has, or will have a negative impact on the child;

d) the likely effect that any separation from the non-citizen would have on the child, taking into account the child's or non-citizen's ability to maintain contact in other ways;

e) whether there are other persons who already fulfil a parental role in relation to the child;

f) any known views of the child (with those views being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child);

g) evidence that the child has been, or is at risk of being, subject to, or exposed to, family violence perpetrated by the non-citizen, or has otherwise been abused or neglected by the non-citizen in any way, whether physically, sexually or mentally;

h) evidence that the child has suffered or experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from the non-citizen's conduct.

1. The Applicant has identified one minor child for consideration under this aspect of Direction 110, his son Austin Njovu aged 10.
2. Austin is the child of the Applicant and his ex-wife Kathryn Njovu. Ms Njovu provided a written statement to the Department dated 24 December 2025 which was tendered in these proceedings[51]. The statement was:

My name is Kathryn Njovu. Marvin Njovu is the father of my son, Austin Njovu. Austin is 10 years old. Prior to his sentencing, Marvin and I had an arrangement that Austin lives with me and Marvin may visit Austin on alternate weekends and may phone at any time. During his sentence, Marvin has maintained contact with Austin via fortnightly Zoom calls.

I asked Austin to write some words to explain whether his father's absence/inaccessibility has impacted him during Marvin's incarceration:

Sometimes I feel really sad that my dad doesn't live near me. I think about it a lot more than I probably should, especially when I see other kids with their dads or when something good or bad happens and I just want to tell him straight away. It hurts knowing he isn't near when I wake up or when I go to sleep and I wish so badly that he could live near me so things could feel normal. Even though I still love him and know that he cares about me, not having him close makes me feel sad and I honestly just miss him.

I believe it is in Austin's interest to have the opportunity for his father to be accessible and involved in his life. Austin may miss this opportunity if Marvin's visa is cancelled.

1. The Applicant also produced to the Tribunal a written statement from the Fulham Correctional facility setting out a record of 25 video visits between the Applicant and Ms Njovu in the period 17 November 2024 and 2 November 2025[52].
2. The Applicant's father provided a written statement dated 10 December 2025 to the Tribunal in which he stated:

He (the Applicant) is deeply concerned about his child growing up without his involvement. I have stepped in, as he has previously asked me to do when he was on bail, to help with the financial upkeep of his child until he is able to do this himself. His child also cannot understand why his dad has disappeared as they used to share weekends together before his jailing.

1. The Applicant stated in his oral evidence that he has had fortnightly contact by video with his son and ex-wife while in prison and that he saw his son regularly when not in custody and it was only at the time of his separation and divorce from his ex-wife that he did not see him on a fortnightly basis. He expressed a strong commitment to continue a close parental relationship with his son.
2. On the basis of this evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant has played a significant parental role in the child's life and has maintained that relationship while in custody. The Applicant and his ex-wife have the expectation and wish that this relationship will continue in the future if the Applicant is released into the Australian community. There is no evidence that the Applicant's prior conduct has had a negative effect on the child or that the child has experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from the Applicant's conduct. The Applicant is no longer in a domestic relationship with his ex-wife and so the risk of the child being exposed to domestic violence perpetrated by the Applicant is substantially diminished.
3. While the Applicant's ex-wife has and will continue to fulfil the primary parental role the Applicant has participated as a co-parent. The Tribunal accepts the important role played by a father in the emotional and social development of children and especially of young boys.
4. As to the likely effect of separation if the Applicant were removed to New Zealand, Ms Njovu was not called to give evidence and so her willingness and capacity to allow the child to visit the Applicant in New Zealand is unknown. The Tribunal notes that the regular video communication currently maintained while the Applicant is in prison could be continued if he were in New Zealand and there may be opportunities for face- to-face visits given the proximity of New Zealand to Australia. Notwithstanding these matters the Tribunal readily accepts that such contact is inadequate for the Applicant to maintain a proper parental role and will involve a significant detriment for the child.
5. Having regard to all of these matters, the Tribunal accepts that it is clearly in the best interests of the Applicant's son for the Applicant to remain in Australia and this is a factor which strongly favours revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant's Visa. This is a primary consideration under Direction 110.

1. Paragraph 8.5 of Part 2 of Direction 110 provides:

(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 enter or remain in Australia.

(2) In addition, visa cancellation or refusal, or non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of a visa, may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences is such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not be granted or continue to hold a visa. In particular, the Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they raise serious character concerns through conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, of the following kind:

b) causing a person to enter into, or being party to (other than being a victim of), a forced marriage;

c) commission of serious crimes against women, children or other vulnerable members of the community such as the elderly or disabled; in this context, 'serious crimes' include crimes of a violent or sexual nature, as well as other serious crimes against the elderly or other vulnerable persons in the form of fraud, extortion, financial abuse/material exploitation or neglect;

d) commission of crimes against government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties; or

e) involvement or reasonably suspected involvement in human trafficking or people smuggling, or in crimes that are of serious international concern including, but not limited to, war crimes, crimes against humanity and slavery; or

(3) The above expectations of the Australian community apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measureable [sic] risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community

This consideration is about the expectations of the Australian community as a whole, and in this respect, decision-makers should proceed on the basis of the Government's views as articulated above, without independently assessing the community's expectations in the particular case.

1. The majority of the Full Court of the Federal Court has explained that paragraph 11.3 of the former Direction 65, which mirrors the wording of paragraphs 8.5(1) and (2) of Direction 110:

... should be understood as expressing a deemed community expectation that all persons who have committed serious criminal offences giving rise to character concerns should have their visa applications refused. The nature of the character test is such that the deemed expectation will arise in most if not all cases falling for consideration under s 501(1) of the Act, having regard to the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's conduct, assessed in accordance with cl 11.1. The text of the clause emphasizes that it may be appropriate to act in accordance with that expectation, so anticipating a class of cases in which it may not be appropriate to do so.

The question of whether it is appropriate to act in accordance with the deemed community expectation is in all cases left for the decision-maker to determine in the ultimate exercise of his or her discretion.[53]

1. The Applicant has lived in Australia for over 25 years and he has made a contribution to the community and has been a responsible parent. He has taken steps to address the factors causing his offending but those steps are not complete and he represents a moderate risk of further offending.
2. The Applicant's offending was very serious. It involved serious family violence which was repeated and escalating in the level of physical and psychological violence inflicted on the victim. The nature of the offending raised character concerns. It demonstrated a willingness to inflict violence and humiliation on the victim, to intimidate the victim in an attempt to dishonestly avoid the consequences of the offending in disregard for the legal restraints imposed to protect the victim from further violence.
3. The deemed expectation of the Australian community as expressed in paragraph 8.5 of Part 2 of Direction 110 is that a non-citizen who engages in such conduct should not be allowed to remain in Australia. This expectation applies regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community: paragraph 8.5(3). The Tribunal is satisfied that the expectation of the Australian community is that the cancellation of the Applicant's Visa should not be revoked.
4. The expectation of the Australian community is a primary consideration under Direction 110. Whether or not it is appropriate to act in accordance with that expectation is a matter to be determined having regard also to each of the other considerations. In weighing each of the considerations the Tribunal attributes substantial weight to the expectation of the Australian community in favour of not revoking the cancellation of the Applicant's Visa.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS - PARAGRAPH 9 OF PART 2 OF DIRECTION 110

1. Paragraph 9.1(1) requires decision-makers to be:

... mindful that unlawful non-citizens are, in accordance with section 198, liable to removal from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable in the circumstances specified in that section, and in the meantime, detention under section 189, noting also that section 197C(1) of the Act provides that for the purposes of section 198, it is irrelevant whether Australia has non-refoulement obligations in respect of an unlawful non-citizen.

1. Paragraph 9.1(3) states that international 'non-refoulement' obligations will generally not be relevant where the person concerned does not raise such obligations for consideration and the circumstances do not suggest a 'non-refoulement' claim. In this case the Applicant has not raised any claim of non-refoulement and, in the absence of such a claim, the prospect of removal to New Zealand does not suggest that there would be any basis for a protection claim.
2. The legal consequences to which the Tribunal must have regard are the direct and immediate statutorily prescribed consequences having regard to the facts and circumstances that prevail at the time of its decision[54].
3. If the decision under review is affirmed, the Applicant will be liable for removal from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable and will be subject to a period of immigration detention pending removal[55]. There is no evidence to suggest that removal would be impracticable or that any detention is likely to be prolonged, bearing in mind that the Applicant is currently in custody and is not eligible for parole until March 2026.
4. In addition to removal from Australia the Applicant, as a person to whom SRC 5001(c) of Schedule 5 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) applies, would be unable to apply for another visa (other than a protection visa) per s.501E(1) and would not be entitled to enter Australia per s.503 unless the Minister acted personally to grant a permanent visa to the person.
5. These are the ordinary legal consequences prescribed for persons whose visas are cancelled under section 501(3A) of the Act and the Tribunal gives this consideration neutral weight.

1. Paragraph 9.2(1) of Part 2 requires that:

(1) Decision-makers must consider the extent of any impediments that the non-citizen may face if removed from Australia to their home country, in establishing themselves and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country), taking into account:

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

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

1. The Applicant stated in an affidavit filed with the Supreme Court in support of his sentencing appeal on 6 November 2025 that:

My anxiety is now increasing due to the knowledge that if I am deported to New Zealand, I will have no personal connections or family support. This absence of family and social support would severely impact my mental health and significantly hinder my ability to reintegrate into the workforce, and this looming uncertainty is already impacting my emotional well-being here in prison and making my prison time more unbearable.

Furthermore, the lack of family support would make securing accommodation in New Zealand extremely difficult. From my understanding of the relevant guidelines, the Parole Board generally requires confirmation of suitable accommodation before approving parole for deportation to countries such as New Zealand or the United Kingdom. Without such confirmation, the likelihood of being granted parole is substantially reduced. This also adds to my distress, as I currently have no means of securing accommodation in New Zealand, nor do I have access to any support networks that could assist with this process.

This uncertainty has been a persistent source of anxiety throughout my sentence. Not knowing whether or when I might be granted parole has made my time in custody considerably more distressing and difficult to endure. Every morning and every day I think about this uncertainty and what is going to happen to me in the future. I often struggle to sleep and start the day with the constant fears and worries that I may not be able to ever see my family again. It has been very excruciating for me every day.

1. The Applicant is currently 44 years of age. He has not provided evidence, nor asserted, that he has any significant physical health issues.
2. He has been diagnosed by Mr Barreiro as suffering from a major depressive disorder with prominent anxiety, insomnia, hyperarousal, and impaired functioning, and has had an alcohol and stimulant use disorder which is currently in sustained remission. Mr Barreiro opined that the Applicant's primary ongoing needs are not addiction treatment and that he does not require residential rehabilitation or intensive substance treatment which would likely be counterproductive. He recommended targeted work on mood, grief, sleep, and interpersonal regulation and said he expected the Applicant's mental health to improve further with structured, brief, skills-based psychotherapy focused on grief processing, relapse-prevention planning for alcohol, sleep restoration, and communication under stress.
3. If released into the Australian community the Applicant has contemplated continuing the regular psychological counselling he has received in prison from Mr Barreiro. He has claimed that his relocation to New Zealand would increase his anxiety and exacerbate his mental health condition and hinder his ability to reintegrate into the workforce in New Zealand. The Tribunal accepts that at least initially this makes it more important for the Applicant to engage in counselling. The Tribunal is satisfied that mental health services of this kind are likely to be available in New Zealand in a way not dissimilar to those available to the Applicant in Australia. In fact, Mr Barreiro said in his oral evidence that if the Applicant were removed to New Zealand he could continue to provide counselling to the Applicant via video-conferencing as he has done while the Applicant has been in prison.
4. The Applicant has no family in New Zealand and claimed to have no friends, although he confirmed in his oral evidence that he has visited New Zealand 5 or 6 times and on at least 3 occasions the purpose of the visit was to catch up with school friends. He said he has not maintained contact with these school friends via social media. The Applicant's father confirmed that he currently owns a house in New Zealand which is tenanted and that he would provide financial assistance to the Applicant if he were removed to New Zealand to the same extent as he would provide to him if released in Australia. He said his support was not a function of geography.
5. New Zealand is linguistically and culturally very similar to Australia and there is no substantial language or cultural barriers evident which would inhibit the Applicant in establishing himself in New Zealand.
6. The Applicant has demonstrated that he has a broad range of relevant work skills having held managerial positions and run his own businesses. The standards of employment, healthcare and social support in New Zealand are comparable to those in Australia. The Tribunal is entitled to take into account common knowledge that the Applicant would have access to government benefits similar to those available to him in Australia unless there is evidence to the contrary[56].
7. Notwithstanding these matters, the Tribunal accepts that the Applicant is likely to face emotional, financial and practical difficulties in establishing himself in New Zealand initially.
8. The Respondent contends that the Australian Border Force provides supports which would be available to the Applicant during his transition to New Zealand, although the nature and level of support was not put in evidence. However, the Tribunal has recognised that there are measures available under New Zealand law to assist returning prisoners under the Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Act 2015 (NZ) (Returning Offenders Act).
9. The Applicant appears to meet the criteria for a determination that he is a "returning prisoner" under section 17 of Returning Offenders Act in that:
   1. he has been convicted in an overseas jurisdiction of an offence that would constitute an imprisonable offence in New Zealand;

2. he has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding one year in relation to that offence; and

3. he is likely to return to New Zealand within six months of his release from custody, which includes immigration detention.
4. Should the Applicant's status as a "returning prisoner" be confirmed he would be subject to monitoring and management by New Zealand's Community Corrections to support safe reintegration into the New Zealand community. He may be assigned a probation officer and/or assisted by Community Corrections staff in assessing immediate needs, applying for benefits, securing employment, and provided support with sourcing short-term accommodation.
5. Even having regard to these matters the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant is likely to face some initial difficulties in establishing himself in New Zealand but he would not face any significant longer term impediments to establishing himself in New Zealand and maintaining basic living standards in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country.
6. Having regard to the initial difficulties the Applicant is likely to face, the Tribunal attributes moderate weight to this consideration.

1. Paragraph 9.3(1) of Part 2 of Direction 110 requires:

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

1. The Applicant has not identified any business interest which would be affected if he were to relocate to New Zealand. While he has expressed the idea that he may seek to establish an NDIA business if released into the Australian community that Applicant has not actually conducted such a business and he has not demonstrated that it is more than an idea he has for a possible venture.
2. As to the employment prospects for the Applicant in Australia, there is no evidence that a decision not to grant the Applicant a Visa would compromise the delivery of a major project or important service in Australia.
3. Accordingly, the Tribunal gives this consideration minimal weight in favour of revocation.

1. The considerations specifically referred to in paragraph 9 are not exclusive and the Tribunal is not limited in considering other relevant matters.
2. The Applicant has not raised any other specific consideration and the Tribunal is satisfied that all of the matters relevant to the Applicant's application have been considered in the context of the considerations specified in Direction 110.

1. In determining whether there is another reason why the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's Visa should be revoked under section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act the Tribunal is required to examine the factors for and against revoking the cancellation_._[57]
2. Weighing the factors for and against revocation requires the Tribunal to give both primary and other considerations 'appropriate weight'.[58] Paragraph 7 of Part 2 of Direction 110 provides guidance on how relevant considerations are to be assessed. It states that primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations, but one or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.
3. There are three primary considerations weighing against revoking the cancellation of the Applicant's Visa
   1. The Tribunal is satisfied that there is at least a moderate risk that, if released into the community, the Applicant will commit further offences of a violent nature, particularly in the context of any future domestic situation, and that this may lead to further offences of the kind for which he was convicted on 8 October 2024. This risk must be weighed against the nature of his past offending which was very serious and if repeated would threaten significant physical and psychological harm to members of the Australian community and to the good order of the society as a whole. The protection of the Australian community is a primary consideration under Direction 110 and paragraph 8.1(1) and Principle 5.2(2) identify the safety of the Australian community as the highest priority of the Australian Government. Accordingly, the Tribunal gives this consideration substantial weight in favour of not revoking the cancellation of the Applicant's Visa.

2. The Applicant has engaged in very serious family violence and given the seriousness of the Applicant's offending it weighs heavily against revocation.

3. The Applicant has engaged in very serious offending. It involved serious family violence which was repeated and escalating in the level of physical and psychological violence inflicted on the victim. The nature of the offending raised character concerns. It demonstrated a willingness to inflict violence and humiliation on the victim, to intimidate the victim in an attempt to dishonestly avoid the consequences of the offending in disregard for the legal restraints imposed to protect the victim from further violence. The deemed expectation of the Australian community as expressed in paragraph 8.5 of Part 2 of Direction 110 is that by engaging in such conduct the Applicant should not be allowed to remain in Australia. This is reinforced by Principles 5.2(1), (3) and (4). In weighing each of the considerations the Tribunal attributes substantial weight to the expectation of the Australian community in favour of not revoking the cancellation of the Applicant's Visa.
4. There are two primary considerations weighing in favour of revoking the cancellation of the Applicant's Visa
   1. it is clearly in the best interests of the Applicant's 10 years old son for the Applicant to remain in Australia which is a factor strongly favouring revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant's Visa; and

2. the Applicant has strong and enduring ties to Australia which warrant substantial weight in favour of revoking the cancellation of his Visa.
3. Of the other considerations identified in Direction 110 the only one weighing in favour of revoking the cancellation of the Applicant's Visa is the extent of the impediments the Applicant would be likely to face in establishing himself in New Zealand. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant is likely to face some initial difficulties but he would not face any significant longer term impediments to establishing himself in New Zealand and maintaining basic living standards in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country. Having regard to the initial difficulties the Tribunal attributes moderate weight to this consideration.
4. In weighing up these considerations The Tribunal has also had regard to the principles in paragraphs 5.2(5) and (6) of Direction 110. The Applicant is not a person who has been contributing to the Australian community for a short time. He has lived in the Australian community for some 25 years and came to the country as a young man. Accordingly, he warrants a higher level of tolerance for his criminal conduct.
5. On the other hand less tolerance is warranted having regard to the principles stated in paragraphs 5.2(7) and (8).
6. Principle 5.2(7) contemplates circumstances in which the nature of the non-citizen's conduct is so serious or the harm that would be caused if it was repeated is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify revocation. Principle 5.2(8) contemplates circumstances where the inherent nature of the conduct such as family violence is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify revocation even if the non-citizen does not pose a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
7. The Applicant's family violence offending was very serious and raises serious character concerns. Under Principles 5.2(7) and (8) even strong countervailing considerations such as the best interests of the Applicant's son and the Applicant's strong and enduring ties to Australia are insufficient to justify revocation.
8. When weighing up the competing factors and having regard to the principles in Principle 5.2 it is clear that the balance strongly favours a decision not to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant's Visa and there is not another reason why the discretion under section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act should be exercised in the Applicant's favour. The correct and preferable decision is to affirm the decision under review.

Pursuant to section 105(a) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth), the Tribunal affirms the decision of the delegate of the Respondent of 24 October 2025 to not revoke the cancellation of the Applicant's Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category Temporary visa under section 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

[4] G2 Attachments K,L and M at pp.114-164

[5] This decision was subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeal in Njovu v The King [2025] VSCA 289

[10] Viane v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 116 at [64] per Colvin J.

[11] See Rokobatini v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 1238; (1999) 90 FCR 583 [17].

[13] The record also includes court appearances in relation to other charges on 1 August 2024, 27 June 2024, 6 February 2024 and 8 August 2023 which did not result in a conviction being recorded and in accordance with the principle stated in WKBF v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 465 the Tribunal has not had regard to these matters in assessing the seriousness of the Applicant's past conduct.

[18] Minister for Home Affairs v Stower [2020] FCA 407 at [45]- [54]]

[21] See: PHLB v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] AATA 162 at [22], PQSM and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration) [2019] AATA 603 at [46]; Re Harrison v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2006] AATA 47 at [63] and BNPB and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2023] AATA 730 at [80].

[26] [2022] FCAFC 70; (2022) 293 FCR 634 [74], citing the High Court's decision in Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 574-5.

[32] See G2 at p.53[39] and SB2 at p.10 [27]

[43] See G2 at p.53[39] and SB2 at p.10 [27]

[53] FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs (2019) 272 FCR 454 at [75]-[76]; see also Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs v HSRN [2023] FCAFC 68 at [31]-[35].

[54] Taulahi v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 177; (2016) 246 FCR 146 and Ali v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 143

[55] Sections 189 and 198 of the Act

[56] see Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 348; (2016) 248 FCR 296 at [44]; Webb v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCA 831 at [90], [99]-[100]; McLachlan v Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 109 at [34]- [35], [37].

[57] Gaspar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1166 at [38].

[58] Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 594 at [23].