1. In a statutory declaration made by the Applicant on 4 November 2011[7], the Applicant stated the following.

I am an Afghani citizen by birth. I do not have citizenship of any other country. I do not have a right to reside in any other country. > > ... > > My date of birth is [...] 1994. > > I was born in Chukshahr, Daikondi, Afghanistan. > > ... > > My father is deceased. My mother, brother [AR] and a sister [F] reside in Pakistan. A second sister [Z] resides in Iran. > > ... > > When I was about one years of age, my father moved the entire family to Iran because it was unsafe for us (as Hazara and Shia Muslims) to remain in Afghanistan. I have lived outside of Afghanistan ever since, apart from twice returning to Afghanistan when the Iranian authorities deported me there. I spent 15 days and 2 days there respectively.

2. The Applicant described three incidents of being targeted or harmed in Afghanistan because of his Hazara ethnicity, which he described as being consistent with information about the discriminatory persecution of Hazaras in Afghanistan.[8]
3. The Applicant participated in interviews with the Department on 17 May 2024 and on 16 October 2024 for the purpose of resolving the Applicant's identity.
4. In a file note dated 21 February 2025, a departmental officer indicated that the Identity and Biometrics Forensic Services of the Department found that:

(a) the Applicant's identity [name], [...] 1995, citizen of Afghanistan is not supported > > (b) it is certain that the [Applicant] concealed his Pakistani identity [name] [...] 1989 > > (c) the [Applicant] concealed the existence of his Australian based Pakistani citizen brother and fabricated other elements of his family composition and life story to support his protection visa claims > > (d) the [Applicant's] immediate family members are documented Pakistani citizens > > (e) it is certain the [Applicant] held Pakistani National Identity Card [number].[9]

(a) to providing false and/or misleading information to the Department that his father is deceased, and that he does not have any family in Australia > > (b) that his father is alive and resides in Pakistan. > > (c) he has an elder brother living in Australia.[10]

6. In a statement dated 23 September 2025[11], the Applicant stated the following.

I grew up in Iran and spent most of my life there. I was an Afghan refugee in Iran. Even though I have Pakistani citizenship through my father, I do not think of myself as Pakistani, as my family originated from Afghanistan and are of Hazara ethnicity. I also think of myself as an Afghan Hazara. > > I admitted in an interview on 16 October 2024 that I did not tell Immigration about my brother. I did not tell immigration this at the time of my application as I thought it could affect the sponsorship of my family. > > ... > > It is true that I have Pakistani citizenship with my date of birth as [...] 1989. I said I was younger to Immigration because during the boat journey from Pakistan to Australia, other passengers seeking asylum advised me to say I was a minor in order to fast track my Immigration case, get more support from the Australian government, and improve my chances of sponsoring my family. > > I am very sorry for not being honest with Immigration. I do not blame anyone else and I am not making excuses for my dishonesty. As a scared young adult at the time when I arrived in Australia, and not understanding the laws, I relied a lot on advice from other passengers on the boat.[12]

7. In a statement made on 4 January 2026, the Applicant stated the following.

At the time I believed this is the right decision only to be able to reunite with my family and getting more support such as education.[13]

1. At the hearing, the privilege against self-incrimination was explained to the Applicant and he was cautioned prior to questioning.
2. The Applicant's oral evidence was consistent with his statement made on 23 September 2025. The Applicant described how his family moved from Iran to Pakistan when he was about five or six years of age. They remained in Pakistan for about one year and then travelled back to Iran but it was 'unsuccessful' so his parents returned to Pakistan in or about 2006. The Applicant's evidence was that:

(a) he never considered himself to be Pakistani, and that he does not speak Urdu and he grew up speaking Persian. > > (b) when his family travelled to Pakistan in or about 2006, he remained in Iran to work and support his family financially > > (c) he was deported from Iran to Afghanistan > > (d) he travelled from Afghanistan to Pakistan to join his family and left from Pakistan to come to Australia > > (e) as regards presenting himself as a minor in Australia, he said it was the 'wrong decision' and that he should not have listened to others > > (f) he said that he did not disclose the fact of his older brother and said that his father had passed away, because he was hoping to bring his family to Australia.

3. For the purposes of this proceeding, I find that:

(a) the Applicant holds Pakistani citizenship > > (b) the Applicant's date of birth is [...] 1989 > > (c) the Applicant was 22 years of age when he arrived in Australia and is now 36 years of age > > (d) the Applicant has an older brother living in Australia > > (e) the Applicant's parents and sisters live in Pakistan.

1. Section 501(3A) of the Migration Act provides that the Minister must cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if:

(a) the Minister is satisfied that the person does not pass the character test because of the operation of:

(i) paragraph 6(a) (substantial criminal record), on the basis of paragraph (7)(a), (b) or (c); or

(ii) paragraph (6)(e) (sexually based offences involving a child), and

(b) the person is serving a sentence of imprisonment, on a full-time basis in a custodial institution, for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.

1. Section 501(6)(a) of the Migration Act provides that a person does not pass the character test if they have a substantial criminal record as defined by section 501(7). Section 501(7)(c) provides that, for the purposes of the character test, a person has a substantial criminal record if they have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 12 months or more.
2. Section 501CA(4) relevantly states that the Minister may revoke the mandatory cancellation if:

(a) the person makes representations in accordance with the invitation; and

(b) the Minister is satisfied:

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

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

1. Section 499(1) of the Migration Act states:

The Minister may give written directions to a person or body having functions or powers under this Act if the directions are about:

(a) the performance of those functions; or

(b) the exercise of those powers.

1. Section 499(2A) of the Migration Act provides that 'a person or body must comply with a direction under subsection (1)'.
2. On 7 June 2024, the Minister made Direction No. 110 Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (the Direction) pursuant to s 499(1) of the Migration Act.

(a) whether the Applicant passes the character test for the purposes of s 501CA(4)(b)(i) of the Migration Act; > > (b) whether there is another reason why mandatory cancellation should be revoked, as provided for by s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act.

1. The Respondent submits that the Applicant's credibility is a live issue.[14] In closing submissions, counsel for the Respondent submitted that Tribunal should be guarded about the Applicant's evidence as regards rehabilitation and change, and his claims concerning fears of harm in Pakistan. Counsel submitted that the Applicant has no problem in lying to get what he wants, pointing to the three examples outlined below.
2. In closing, Ms Armstrong submitted that the Applicant conceded that he did lie and save for the evidence regarding his sexual relationship with the victim, he has been wholly truthful to the Tribunal.

False information given to support Applicant's claim for protection

1. I have described above the false information given by the Applicant to support his claims for protection on arrival in Australia.
2. The Applicant states:

I am very sorry for not being honest with Immigration. I do not blame anyone else and I am not making excuses for my dishonesty. As a scared young adult at the time when I arrived in Australia and not understanding the laws, I relied a lot on advice from other passengers on the boat.[15]

1. Since his arrival in Australia and up until Departmental interviews in 2024 the evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the Applicant maintained at least one, or all of the following,: that he was born in 1994 (or 1995), that he was born in Afghanistan and is an Afghani citizen, that all of his family lived in Pakistan and his father had passed away. For example, in court proceedings regarding the subject offending in 2015[16], to medical practitioners at some time between 1 January 2022 and 8 July 2023[17], in submissions made to the Department in 2020 seeking revocation of the mandatory cancellation[18], and in submissions and information to the Parole Board in 2021[19].
2. Under cross-examination, the Applicant responded to counsel's proposition that he was prepared to go along with the lies for many years. The Applicant gave evidence to the effect that 'once you tell a lie, you stick with that, if you want to or don't want to'. Ms Armstrong submitted that the Applicant did not continue to deliberately mislead, but that he came with a fabricated story on his arrival to Australia, and when asked to clarify matters, he did so.

1. In evidence in chief on the morning of 22 January 2026, the Applicant described the nature of relationship with the victim of his offending as being good friends, supporting each other and giving each other hope. He described going for coffee or tea after school, and when he started living on his own, the victim would come to his house. He gave evidence that they did not have a sexual relationship with the victim for cultural reasons.
2. Later, when being cross-examined, the Applicant gave evidence that the relationship would have been taboo. He confirmed his earlier evidence that they were not in a sexual relationship but that they were 'very friendly...touching each other'. The Applicant was then taken to a Department for Correctional Services record dated 10 October 2014 which stated the following:

...[the Applicant] reported cultural issues and concerns of a possible pregnancy in February which would have resulted in consequences from the community if they found out.[20]

1. The Applicant subsequently gave evidence to the Tribunal he did have a sexual relationship with the victim. He said that because the victim denied having a sexual relationship in Court, he said that they did not have a sexual relationship because the victim did not want anyone to know, and because of how it would affect the victim if people in their community knew. He said that in 2014 he believed that no man would want to marry someone who is not a virgin. He said that he did not want to damage her future relationships.
2. The Applicant said that he did not get any benefit from telling this lie, and he told his lawyer the truth in 2014.

1. Mr d'Assumpcao took the Applicant to a progress report prepared by a Community Correctional Officer and dated 4 December 2024, which states the following.

On 25/06/2024, [the Applicant] reported to his Community Correctional Officer that he was experiencing a deterioration in his mental health due to the ongoing requirements of intensive electronic monitoring. A suicide risk assessment was completed and [the Applicant] stated that he did have thoughts and a plan to commit suicide by attending Glenelg for a swim and to not return. An exclusion zone was created around Glenelg beach and Mental Health Triage was contacted.[21]

1. The Applicant gave evidence that he was 'trying to protest to get fair things to happen', and that he was frustrated about his parole conditions and worried about how he was going to survive. The Applicant agreed that he lied about planning to commit suicide, and that there was no way he was going to hurt himself or anyone else. He said that he was just frustrated with his situation. The Applicant said that he 'had no other option'. In re-examination, the Applicant said that his situation at the time was that he did not have a house, he felt like an unwanted guest in his friend's house. He said that he knew things would not change immediately, but he was hoping to be able to talk to the Parole Board and ease his conditions. He said that once he got a job and a place to live, his situation changed, and he was a different person.

1. Section 501(6)(a) of the Migration Act provides that a person does not pass the character test if the person has a substantial criminal record, as defined by section 501(7). Section 501(7) prescribes how a person may have a substantial criminal record and relevantly includes if the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.[22]
2. On 18 December 2015, the Applicant was convicted and sentenced to a term of 11 years and six months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 6 years, for Attempted murder committed on 8 October 2014.
3. I am satisfied that the Applicant has a substantial criminal record as defined by s 501(7)(c) of the Migration Act, and that he does not pass the character test under s 501(6)(a) of the Migration Act.

1. Paragraph 5.1(1) of the Direction states that the objective of the Migration Act is 'to regulate, in the national interest, the coming into, and presence in, Australia of non-citizens...'.[23]
2. Paragraph 5.1(2) provides that 'where the discretion to refuse to grant or to cancel a visa is enlivened, the decision-maker must consider the specific circumstances of the case in deciding whether to exercise that discretion'.[24]
3. Paragraph 5.2 sets out principles to provide a framework 'within which decision-makers should approach their task...'.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Paragraph 6 of the Direction provides that 'informed by the principles in paragraph 5.2, a decision-maker must take into account the considerations identified in sections 8 and 9, where relevant to the decision'.[25]
2. Paragraph 7 of the Direction states that:

(1) In applying the considerations (both primary and other), information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight. > > (2) The primary consideration at 8.1...(protection of the Australian community) is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations. Otherwise, primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations. > > (3) One or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.

3. Paragraph 8 of the Direction sets out the primary considerations as:

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

(2) whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence

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

(4) the best interests of minor children in Australia

(5) expectations of the Australian community

1. Paragraph 9 sets out three 'Other Considerations' to be taken into account where relevant, although is not limited to these alone as other considerations.

(a) legal consequences of the decision > > (b) extent of impediments if removed > > (c) impact on Australian business interests.

PRIMARY CONSIDERATION: PROTECTION OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL OR OTHER SERIOUS CONDUCT

Safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government

1. Paragraph 8.1(1) of the Direction provides that when considering the protection of the Australian community, decision-makers should keep in mind that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government. I have regard to the principle that 'entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that Australian confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, will respect important institutions, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community'.[26]
2. Paragraph 8.1(2) states that decision-makers should also give consideration to:
   1. The nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's conduct to date; and
   2. The risk to the Australian community, should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.

The nature and seriousness of the conduct to date

1. In considering the nature and seriousness of the conduct to date, I have had regard to paragraphs 8.1.1(1)(a)-(i) to the extent relevant.

1. On 23 November 2015, the Applicant was convicted of Attempted murder committed on 8 October 2014. He was sentenced to a term of 11 years and six months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 6 years. [27]
2. The sentencing remarks describe the circumstances of the subject offending as follows.

...you were in a relationship with the victim...However you began to be directive and controlling in the relationship, telling her things like what she could wear and who she could speak to...

In the months leading up to 8 October 2014 the relationship had not been going well and you began to get desperate and you became distressed. [The victim] told you that the relationship was over and that she no longer wanted to have contact with you. You made a number of attempts to resume the relationship. On one occasion you contacted her at her high school and pretended to be her brother. You also threatened to tell her mother about the relationship.

On 22 August 2014 you made good that threat when you went to her house uninvited and spoke to her mother. You told her that the two of you had been sleeping together. Not surprising her mother became very upset about what you were saying and she told you to leave or she would call the police. Undeterred you remained at the premises until the police arrived. I accept that you were not violent on that occasion but the police eventually had to ask you to leave.

[The victim] began to do some work experience at a particular shop. You sent her a number of messages and you also spoke to the owner of the shop where she was working. You told her that she should not work there because you did not approve.

On 8 October you met [the victim]. You got her into the car and drove her to a back street. There you tried to convince her to resume the relationship, and she refused. That is when the violence began. She resisted and you put a box cutter to her throat. Chillingly, having overcome her resistance you looked at her and said 'I'm really sorry I'm doing this' and then you pulled her scarf so tight that she lost consciousness. You then strangled her further by use of your hands and she suffered significant bruising around the neck. She was fortunate to survive. You eventually rang the ambulance and got her assistance, and you admitted to the ambulance call operation trying to kill her. You were clearly upset towards the end of the phone call and you slashed your wrist. [28]

1. Under cross-examination, the Applicant gave evidence that the victim was the 'light of his life' at the time, and he was very selfish. He said that he was only thinking about himself and no one else. He said that he came from countries where he had no guidance about relationships.
2. In a statement made on 4 January 2026, the Applicant stated the following.

At the of my offending, I was very depressed to hear that [the victim] wanted to break up. I had [no] family and no friends. I had nothing positive in my life at the time expect her.[29]

1. I am entitled to receive evidence of the Applicant's conviction and sentence and treat it as probative of the factual matters upon which the conviction and sentence were based.[30]

1. The Direction provides that, without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered 'very serious', the types of crimes or conduct viewed very seriously by the Australian government and the Australian community are 'violent and/or sexual crimes' and 'crimes of a violent or sexual nature against women or children, regardless of the sentence imposed' and 'acts of family violence, regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or sentence imposed': 8.1.1(1)(a)(i)-(iii).[31]
2. The Applicant has been convicted of an offence that involved violence against a woman, and also involved family violence, as defined in the Direction. I have regard to the view of the Australian Government and the Australian community the crime committed by the Applicant is viewed very seriously regardless of the sentence imposed. I find that the Applicant's offending was very serious conduct.

1. I do not make any finding in respect of paragraph 8.1.1(1)(b).

1. Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(c) provides that 'with the exception of the crimes or conduct mentioned in subparagraph (a)(ii), (a)(iii) or (b)(i) above', the decision-maker must have regard to the sentence imposed by the courts for a crime or crimes. Subparagraph (a)(ii) concerns crimes of a violent and/or sexual nature against women and children, subparagraph (a)(iii) concerns acts of family violence. I am not required to have regard to the sentence imposed by the Court in this case.

Impact on victim and their family: 8.1.1(1)(d)

1. I am to have regard to the impact of the offending on any victims of the offending and their family, where this information is available and where the Applicant has been afforded procedural fairness.[32]
2. In sentencing remarks, the Court stated the following.

As a consequence of your actions the victim suffered bruising around her neck and face and conjunctival bleeding in her eyes. Expert medical evidence given at trial was that the presence of petechial haemorrhaging and a history of a loss of consciousness were strong indicators of the strangulation....

...After the strangulation, the victim described the occasions when she first saw herself in the mirror. She stated the person that she could see what almost unrecognisable. Although the physical injuries have healed she continues to suffer emotionally. She is overwhelmed with feelings of fear and suffers from nightmares.[33]

Frequency and increasing trend of seriousness: 8.1.1(1)(e) and cumulative effect of repeated offending 8.1.1(1)(f)

1. The Applicant has only been convicted of the subject offending, so I do not make any finding in respect of paragraph 8.1.1(1)(e) or paragraph 8.1.1(1)(f).

False or misleading information to the Department 8.1.1(1)(g)

1. As discussed above, I find that the Applicant provided false or misleading information to the Department on his arrival to Australia in 2011 as regards his citizenship, date of birth and family members.

Re-offending since formal warning 8.1.1(1)(h)

Where the offence was committed in another country 8.1.1(1)(j)

Conclusion as to nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct

1. Having regard to all the matters provided for in paragraph 8.1.1 of the Direction to the extent relevant, I find the Applicant's conduct to be very serious.

Risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct: 8.1.2

1. In considering the need to protect the Australian community from harm, I have regard to the Government's view that the Australian community's tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. Some conduct and the harm that would be caused, if it were to be repeated, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable.[34]
2. In assessing the risk that may be posed by the Applicant to the Australian community, I have regard to, cumulatively:

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

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

1. information and evidence on the risk of the non­citizen re-offending; and

2. evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since their most recent offence...

...

Nature of harm to individuals or Australian community should Applicant engage in further criminal conduct or other serious conduct: 8.1.2(2)(a)

1. The Applicant submits that the nature of harm that he may pose, considering the subject offending, is violence towards female partners, but that the nature of harm must be assessed against the likelihood or risk that he will actually commit further offences.[35]
2. Paragraph 8.1.2(2)(a) and (b) of the Direction requires that I have regard to the nature of harm should the Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct cumulatively with the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in further such conduct, for the purposes of assessing the risk that may be posed by the Applicant to the community.
3. Should the Applicant engage in further criminal conduct or other serious conduct, I am satisfied that the nature of harm to others would be significant with the potential for serious physical and psychological harm. I find that the impact on the community more generally is harm in the way of costs and resources.

Likelihood of the Applicant engaging in further criminal conduct or other serious conduct: 8.1.2(2)(b)

1. I have regard to the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in further criminal conduct or other serious conduct, taking into account:

(i) information and evidence on the risk of the non-citizen re-offending; and > > (ii) evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since their most recent offence....[36]

1. A South Australian Department of Correctional Services Domestic and Family Violence Intervention Program (DFVIP) report dated 27 April 2020[37], indicates the following.

(a) The DFVIP was facilitated between 28 January 2020 to 11 March 2020, and 20 sessions were held in total. > > (b) The report was prepared using feedback from facilitators of the DFVIP, and information may have been garnered from DCS records. The writer of the report acknowledged the absence of feedback from the Applicant's former partner as to her experiences of the Applicant through the period of intervention, and 'in the absence of this feedback, this report should be considered as limited to speaking about the in-group behaviour and attitude of [the Applicant]. In-group behaviour and attitude may not accurately predict his intended or actual behaviour within current or future relationships, as such it is deemed appropriate to consider the contents of this report, and the potential implications in terms of behaviour change in light of this'. > > (c) The Applicant attended all sessions of the program, and his participation was considered satisfactory. > > (d) At his pre-treatment assessment, [the Applicant] demonstrated minimal insight in relation to responsibility taking, and a general predilection to shift responsibility for his domestically violent and abusive behaviour to his former partner. Post treatment, the Applicant was deemed to have shifted his position on, and gained an understanding of responsibility taking, non-violence, alternatives to using violence, impact of his violence and abuse; and dangerous thinking. > > (e) At his pre-treatment assessment, the Applicant demonstrated minimal understanding in relation to commitment to non-violence. He did not express a consideration of the need to develop alternatives to his use of violence as he believed he is not generally violent and was violent only to his former partner and at the time he thought his violence was justified. Post treatment, the Applicant was deemed to have shifted his position, and he acknowledged that perpetrating domestic violence was wrong and his former partner did not deserve to be abused. He stated that he did not want to be violent...and as such recognised the need to commit to cease his abusive and violent behaviour by taking identifiable strategies toward behavioural and attitudinal change utilising MCM. > > (f) At his pre-treatment assessment, the Applicant demonstrated minimal insight in relation to his understanding of alternatives to violence. Post treatment, the Applicant demonstrated a good understanding of the MCM model. > > (g) Pre-treatment, the Applicant demonstrated some insight in relation to his understanding of the impact of his violence and abuse on his former partner. Post-treatment, he demonstrated a good understanding of domestic violence and the long term negative impact on women and children. > > (h) Pre-treatment, the Applicant demonstrated minimal insight in relation to dangerous thinking. He lacked awareness how his negative and unhealthy thoughts tended to be associated with his negative emotions leading him to perpetrate violence. Post-treatment, the Applicant was deemed to have shifted his position. > > (i) Psychometric testing indicated that further work was required for the Applicant to increase his acknowledgement of responsibility taking. > > (j) The Applicant demonstrated a good understanding of domestic violence, and a commitment to ceasing violence. > > (k) Recommendations for case managers included that the Applicant would need to focus on monitoring and modifying his behaviour using the MCM model, and monitoring for domestic violence behaviours and ideas around masculinity beliefs that support abuse and violence.

2. On 20 January 2022, the Applicant was released to parole and was immediately taken to immigration detention.[38]
3. In a letter from the Parole Board of South Australia dated 14 December 2023, the Presiding Member described the Applicant's institutional behaviour as 'good' and stated the following:

He is described as polite and respectful and easily managed. Whilst in prison he has worked as an outside worker, a unit worker, in the kitchen, in the metal shop, in the laundry and as the unit cook. He undertook Certificate II in Mechanical Engineering. Certificate II in Retail, he achieved a forklift licence and a scissor lift licence. He undertook the Domestic Family Violence Intervention Program...the facilitators reported that he engaged satisfactorily and demonstrated insight. Further, he demonstrated a good understanding of domestic violence, the cycle of violence and how indulging in dangerous thoughts led to his use of violence. It should be noted that the program is relatively short, and therefore there are some limitations. Any behavioural change he has achieved and in the context of a domestic relationship are yet to be tested over a period of time.[39]

Electronic monitoring and evidence regarding Applicant's time in the community since the offending

1. The Applicant was subject to parole conditions, including home detention and an intensive electronic monitoring when he was released from immigration detention on 21 November 2023.[40]
2. An OARS Community Transitions report dated 14 March 2024 indicates that the case manager referred the Applicant to domestic and family violence counselling
3. In a minute dated 8 March 2024, Community Corrections Officers reported the following.

(a) The Applicant had recorded no breaches of parole conditions and had maintained compliance with weekly reporting requirements. > > (b) Since 6 December 2023, the Applicant continued his engagement with the OARS Home Detention Integrated Support Services Program (HISSP). The HISSP case manager reported that the Applicant completed 5.45 hours of domestic violence counselling, and he was supported to obtain a mental health care plan and continued appointments with Ms Sassi. > > (c) It 'would appear that [the Applicant] presents with a strong focus on himself and what he believes he is entitled to', and '[the Applicant's] demeanour appears to change quickly when his expectations are not met, in particular his attitude towards his Parole conditions and the expectation that they are to be varied or removed prematurely to meet his expectations'.[41]

4. In a letter dated 31 May 2024, in support of the Applicant's request for parole transfer to Victoria, Ms Loretta Sassi, Clinical Psychologist, reported the following.

(a) She first saw the Applicant from 6 June 2023 and then on a monthly basis. > > (b) For six or seven months, the Applicant was on home detention relying on friends in Adelaide but was unable to secure employment due to supervision requirements. > > (c) Psychological therapy focused on cognitive behavioural therapy, along with supportive counselling to address some increasingly depressive symptoms along with anxiety emanating from his circumstances related to home detention and parole, specifically inability to earn money and provide accommodation for himself. > > (d) The lack of opportunity to earn money and provide accommodation for himself resulted in 'increasingly depressive symptoms along with anxiety''.[42]

5. On 28 August 2024, the Parole Board of South Australia approved the transfer of the Applicant's parole order and supervision to Victoria. The Victorian authorities approved the interstate transfer on 16 December 2024. On 20 March 2025, the Applicant withdrew his request for an interstate transfer.[43]
6. In a minute dated 4 December 2024 entitled Progress Report[44], a Community Correctional Officer reported that:

(a) on 15 April 2024 the Applicant reported that it was extremely difficult to gain employment with intensive electronic monitoring 'as they reject his application as soon as he says he is subject to this condition' > > (b) on 25 June 2024, the Applicant reported threatened suicide (as discussed above) > > (c) on 16 October 2024, following judicial review and by consent, the Court removed the condition of intensive electronic monitoring[45] > > (d) on 7 November 2024, the Australian Borderforce Operations (AEGIS) removed the electronic device required by AEGIS > > (e) Ms Sassi reported that the Applicant's attendance had been 'excellent' and they completed a final session on 25 November 2024 on the basis that he reported doing extremely well given the removal of intensive electronic monitoring, obtaining accommodation and full-time employment > > (f) [the Applicant's] presentation and mental health at current has improved since the removal of electronic monitoring conditions and recommended that the Applicant engage with his Community Corrections Officer in conversations relating to the subject offending 'as there is concern for his victim insight and continued minimization into the offending'.

Richard Balfour, Forensic Clinical Psychologist

1. Mr Balfour produced a report dated 19 December 2025[46] and provided oral evidence to the Tribunal. Mr Balfour assessed the Applicant on 8 December 2025.
2. Mr Balfour noted the Applicant's self-reported history to include the following.

(a) The Applicant described being born in Iran and growing up in poverty as an illegal immigrant in Iran. > > (b) The Applicant described growing up in a constant state of tension regarding his citizenship status, having been born illegally in Iran. > > (c) The Applicant described witnessing violence in Pakistan perpetrated by the Taliban against Hazara people; being nearly sexually assaulted while in Afghanistan, and suffering severe racism in Iran, Pakistan and from the Taliban in Afghanistan. > > (d) The Applicant said that he was deported from Iran to Afghanistan, and for one day was placed in a large cargo container with 40 other people with no basic facilities or water and the temperature reached 45 degrees. > > (e) The Applicant said that his parents sold their family home to pay for a people smuggler to take him to Australia and described travelling on an 'old wooden fishing boat' from Jakarta with about 70 other people. > > (f) The Applicant said that his transition to living in Adelaide was 'excellent', and he was provided with stable accommodation and support. He said that he suffered culture shock as he did not speak English and he felt lonely and became depressed, and that he comes from a cultural background that does not recognise or understand the concept of mental illness because of social stigma. > > (g) The Applicant described being poorly educated, having completed approximately four years of primary school education, and one year of high school in Australia. > > (h) The Applicant's only relationship was that with the victim of the subject offending. He has not dated any women since being released from detention but has no trouble socialising with women. > > (i) The Applicant said that the victim was his 'first love' and they 'dated like boyfriend and girlfriend' and 'they were very strict because of their cultural values' and 'they did not become sexually active'. > > (j) The Applicant told the victim's mother that he and the victim were in a sexual relationship and 'he knew that such behaviour was highly culturally taboo. He did this in the vain hope that she would have to marry him. He also said that in his culture no man wants a woman who is not a virgin. He knew that he was lying because they had not been sexually active'. > > (k) The Applicant's current focus is on advancing his life prospects. He may later consider being in a relationship with a woman and having children, but only after he has obtained a house. > > (l) The Applicant said that the last time he felt angry was when he was placed on home detention bail because he spent 3 weeks confined in a hotel with[out][47] a kettle to make tea. He could not buy food.

3. Mr Balfour assessed the Applicant's risk of recidivism using the Violence Risk Assessment Guide-Revised (VRAG-R) and explained that the VRAG-R is a structured actuarial instrument designed to estimate the long-term risk of violent recidivism among adult offenders, particularly males with a history of serious violence. The VRAG-R consists of 12 empirically derived static risk factors. The VRAG-R is 'not a standalone measure and should be integrated with structured professional judgment, dynamic risk assessment and relevant clinical information...'. Mr Balfour found the Applicant to be in the bottom 3.7th percentile in a reference group of 1261 convicted violent offenders.
4. The Historical, Clinical and Risk-20 Version 3 (HCR-20 V3) is a structured professional judgment tool used in assessing and managing the risk of violence and aggression. Mr Balfour assessed the Applicant in being in the moderate range on the historical risk factors domain; in the low range on the clinical items (current factors) domain; and in the low range on the risk management items (future factors) domain. Mr Balfour noted that the Applicant has feasible plans, was not exposed to destabilisers, had extensive personal support, had been compliant with remediation and was not exposed to acute extreme stressors.
5. Mr Balfour was of the view that overall; the Applicant's risk of criminal recidivism and violent behaviour is in the low range of risk and is in the lowest category of Level 1 on the risk classification system adopted by the US Council of State Governments Justice Centre.
6. Mr Balfour is of the view that the Applicant suffers from Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (CPTSD). Mr Balfour described symptoms of CPTSD as including emotional dysregulation, persistent feelings of worthlessness or guilty, difficulty maintaining healthy relationships, and a deep sense of distrust or detachment from others; as well as intrusive memories, hypervigilance and avoidance behaviours.
7. Mr Balfour believes that the following factors facilitated the Applicant's offending.

(a) His conservative patriarchal culture with rigid gender role stereotypes regarding relationship dynamics, and so consequently the Applicant became controlling and domineering in his relationship with the victim. > > (b) The strain of having an illicit relationship. > > (c) He was immature, naïve and had never dated a woman before and had unrealistic expectations about their relationship. > > (d) He was suffering from culture shock, leading to Major Depressive Disorder and feeling desperately lonely, adversely affecting his ability to think critically and realistically. > > (e) He became angry and resentful when the victim terminated their relationship.

8. Mr Balfour considered that at the time of offending, the Applicant was having a 'mental health crisis', suffering from the effects of CPTSD, Major Depressive Disorder and culture shock.
9. Mr Balfour is of the view that the Applicant's prognosis to cease offending is good for the following reasons.

(a) His offending behaviour occurred with the context of a 'unique constellation of situational psychosocial stressors that are unlikely to be repeated'. > > (b) He has sought professional assistance for his mental health problems. > > (c) The seriousness of the offending had a major salutary effect upon his, with a lengthy term of imprisonment having a considerable personal deterrent effect and so he is highly motivated to lead a lawful and productive life in Australia. > > (d) He is remorseful and has exhibited victim empathy. > > (e) He is significantly matured psychologically and socially since the offending and has engaged with some productive introspection regarding his violent offending behaviour and interactions with women in general. > > (f) There is no evidence to suggest that the Applicant has a pattern of misogynistic behaviour or sexist attitudes. > > (g) He did not exhibit evidence of violent behaviour in prison. > > (h) He has twice participated in rehabilitation programs for perpetrators of intimate partner violence. > > (i) He does not suffer from a comorbid psychopathology. > > (j) He comes from a Hazara Shia Muslim background, and there is no evidence that he possesses violent ideological philosophies or doctrines against Western culture and women. > > (k) He wants to be a good family provider and father and so does not want to consider dating women until he has the means to support a family. > > (l) His personal strengths can be used as protective factors, he is of normal intelligence, he has a strong work ethic, he currently has stable employment, he values his life in Australia, he does not want to be deported because of discrimination against Hazara, and he has 'too much to lose by reoffending'. > > (m) Mr Balfour's assessment of the Applicant's risk, using a classification system, is Level 1, being the lowest category in the system.

10. In oral evidence to the Tribunal, Mr Balfour gave evidence that even if certain events did not occur in the way reported by the Applicant, he considered that poverty and travelling on a boat to Australia could be 'super stressor' events leading to CPTSD
11. When asked how the Applicant might react if he is confronted with rejection in a romantic relationship again, Mr Balfour said that the Applicant 'has matured since then' and that the 'risk factors are low'.
12. Mr Balfour did not resile from his opinion on his assessment of the Applicant's risk of re-offending when asked about the impact of removal of parole conditions in the future.

1. In a statement made on 4 January 2026, the Applicant stated the following.

...I understand the long term effects upon [the victim's] mental wellbeing which I am very sorry for.

I have worked hard to gain insight and develop genuine remorse. I understand the gravity of my violent past and have taken concrete steps to rehabilitate myself.

I have been honest about my conviction, and I believe my honesty shows I am not in denial about the past and pose no risk of re-offending.

I also have more positive aspect of my life to focus on, such as improving my health, support networks and positively participating in the community through work and main and developing friendships in the community.[48]

1. In oral evidence to the Tribunal, the Applicant said that he cannot change his actions but that he can only better himself for the future. He said that he is very ashamed of what happened, and that he tries to stop other people from 'going the wrong way'. He explained that he has learnt that domestic violence is not only physical, but also verbal and emotional.
2. The Applicant gave evidence that he saw a psychologist, Loretta Sassi, when he was in detention, and on home detention. He said that when he was released on home detention, he had difficulties with his accommodation, and he was unable to get a job because of the strict monitoring conditions. He has sessions with Ms Sassi until she suggested that he did not need to see her anymore.
3. Under cross-examination, the Applicant gave evidence that he no longer has the same cultural views about women that he had at the time of the offending, and that if he wants to date women, he needs to have a house and a job first. He said that he can now see the world from other people's views, and he has friends who are women. He said that he can recognise a toxic relationship.
4. The Applicant explained that he uses a technique referred to as 'MCM' to respond to any situation before he acts, with MCM being monitor, challenge and modify.
5. The Applicant submits that:

(a) the Tribunal can be satisfied that the risk he presents to the Australian community is negligible or very low > > (b) the assessment of the Applicant's risk must involve an examination of his conduct in the past 11 years, with the Direction requiring weight to be given to time spent in the community post-offending > > (c) there is no evidence to support the suggestion that the Applicant poses a high or unacceptable risk to the Australian community > > (d) evidence leads to the conclusion that the Applicant poses a negligible or very low risk to the Australian community: > > > (i) it has been over 11 years since the subject offending, and since release on parole, the Applicant has not re-offended > > > > (ii) immediately after the offence, the Applicant called emergency services, performed CPR and showed genuine concern and remorse towards the victim > > > > (iii) during his incarceration and release on parole, the Applicant took positive steps to rehabilitate by attending and successfully completing the Domestic and Family Violence Intervention Program > > > > (iv) the Applicant accepts full responsibility for his conduct, the significant impact on the victim and persons around him and has developed victim empathy and has not tried to minimise the seriousness of his offending > > > > (v) the Applicant has been honest and transparent about his convictions, and his candour reflects someone who is not in denial about his past and poses a negligible risk of re-offending > > > > (vi) based on objective risk assessments, the Applicant poses a very low risk to the community and more specifically, he is in the lowest risk category for violent recidivism in the community.[49] > > (e) In closing submissions, Ms Armstrong noted that the fact that there was a decrease in the severity of the parole conditions, that the Applicant was released on parole, and that the government has not applied for an extended supervision order against the Applicant are all factors indicative of little concern from the Parole Board and Department of Corrections as to the Applicant's risk of re-offending.

Consideration of the risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct

1. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the Applicant had made limited rehabilitative progress up to 2020. However, post his completion of the DFVIP, the evidence indicates that the Applicant's attitudes and insights shifted, and he developed strategies for alternatives to violence, and for behavioural and attitudinal change. I give weight to the Applicant's treatment undertaken since being in the community with Ms Sassi and with OARS.
2. I find that reduction of the Applicant's parole conditions, in particular the removal of electronic monitoring conditions tends to indicate that the Parole Board and the Court were of the view that the Applicant's risk of reoffending is not high. I accept that the government has not yet applied for an extended supervision order against the Applicant, although I observe that the Applicant's head sentence does not expire until April 2026, so it may still be possible for such an application to be made.
3. I give weight to the Applicant's time in the community since November 2023, having remained compliant with parole and reporting conditions, finding employment and stable accommodation and reintegrating into the community. The Applicant has not committed any further offending in the community.
4. I accept that there are protective factors in place now for the Applicant that were not in place at the time of the offending, including that the Applicant has the benefit of treatment, that he has stable employment and accommodation, that he has friends in the community and that his level of English has significantly improved.
5. I accept Mr Balfour's opinion that the Applicant's risk of re-offending is low, and I find that the Applicant's risk of re-offending is low.
6. However, for the following reasons, I consider that the Applicant's rehabilitation is vulnerable, particularly if he is faced with adverse circumstances in his day-to-day life or faces rejection in a romantic relationship in the future.

(a) I find that the Applicant's rehabilitation has not been tested in the context of a domestic or romantic relationship as the Applicant has not been in a relationship since the offending in 2014, with the following evidence relevant in this regard. > > > (i) At sentencing, the Court remarked that the Applicant's character witnesses at the time of the trial told him that the Applicant was at that time 'a quiet well-mannered man and they all express surprise and disbelief that you could have committed such an act' and the sentencing judge went onto state: '...I accept the contents of those references and away from this particular relationship you behave well. It is how you behave within the relationship that is the problem'.[50] > > > > (ii) In 2023, the Presiding Member of the Parole Board noted that 'Any behavioural change he has achieved and in the context of a domestic relationship are yet to be tested over a period of time'.[51] > > > > (iii) The writer of the DFVIP report dated 27 April 2020 noted 'In-group behaviour and attitude may not accurately predict his intended or actual behaviour within current or future relationships, as such it is deemed appropriate to consider the contents of this report, and the potential implications in terms of behaviour change in light of this'. [52] > > (b) I treat the Applicant's evidence as to his remorse and rehabilitation with caution for the following reasons. > > > (i) Despite his justifications for doing so, the Applicant gave untruthful evidence to the Tribunal while under oath as regards the nature of his relationship with the victim. > > > > (ii) The evidence of the Applicant, in relation to the 2024 threatened suicide described above, is that he lied because he had 'no other option', suggesting that the Applicant may lie to achieve a particular outcome when he feels justified in doing so. > > (c) Mr Balfour diagnosed the Applicant with CPTSD. The Applicant gave evidence that he is not undertaking any treatment for CPTSD because Ms Loretta Sassi, Clinical Psychologist, told him that 'he does not need it now'.

7. The Applicant submits that the delegate's views that 'given the gravity of [the Applicant's] offending, I consider any risk of reoffending in such a manner to be unacceptable...a lack of risk does not outweigh seriousness and community expectations' render the term 'risk' in the Direction meaningless or irrelevant as it implies that any level of risk is unacceptable. Relying on MIBP v Lesianawai [2014] FCAFC 141; (2014) 227 FCR 562, the Applicant submits that deciding if a risk of harm is 'unacceptable' does not complete the decision-maker's role, they must also weigh other factors, and the evaluation of risk cannot be replaced or fully addressed by simply concluding its unacceptability.[53] In closing submissions, Ms Armstrong submitted that the Direction provides that only that the risk 'may' be unacceptable.
8. I am guided, but not bound by, the assessment of 'unacceptable risk' under the Direction by Deputy President Roushan in PHTP and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2026] ARTA 60. I am satisfied that any conclusion about whether risk is unacceptable must be 'anchored in findings about the nature of harm and the likelihood of the relevant conduct occurring'. [54]

Consideration and findings on the protection of the Australian community

1. Having regard to all the matters provided for in paragraph 8.1 of the Direction to the extent relevant, I find the Applicant's offending to be very serious. I find that victim of the Applicant's offending was harmed physically and emotionally. I find that the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct weighs very heavily against revocation of mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's protection visa.
2. I find that the Applicant's risk of re-offending is low, but that his rehabilitation is vulnerable if he is faced with adverse circumstances in his day-to-day life or faced with rejection in a romantic relationship in the future.
3. Based on my findings about the nature of harm and the likelihood of the relevant conduct occurring, I am satisfied that the Applicant's conduct, and the harm that would be caused if it were to be repeated, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable.
4. I find that the primary consideration of protection of the Australian community weighs strongly against revocation of mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's protection visa.

1. Paragraph 8.2(1) of the Direction provides that the Government has serious concerns about conferring on non-citizens who engage in family violence the privilege of entering or remaining in Australia. The Government's concerns in this regard 'are proportionate to the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the non-citizen'.
2. Paragraph 4 of the Direction 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....[55]

1. The Direction defines 'member of the person's family' to include 'a person who has, or has had, an intimate personal relationship with the relevant person'.[56]
2. In sentencing remarks, the Court stated the following.

This case follows a depressingly familiar pattern regarding domestic violence. I have received and taken into account a large number of character references tendered on your behalf. They tell me that you are a quiet well-mannered man and they all express surprise and disbelief that you could have committed such an act. I have no doubt that in the context in which they come to know and see you your behaviour is just like that. That is the face that you portray to that group of people. The person who is the object of your affections sees a different person; someone who when he does not get what he wants becomes controlling and aggressive. Finally, the aggression turns into actual violence.[57]

1. The Applicant accepts that the subject offending constitutes family violence as defined in the Direction.[58] I am satisfied that the subject offending involved family violence as defined by the Direction.
2. In considering the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the Applicant, I am required to take into account the following factors 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:

(i) the extent to which the person accepts responsibility for their family violence related conduct;

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

(iii) 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-citizens's migration status, should the non-citizen engage in further acts of family violence.

1. With regard to paragraph 8.2(3)(a) of the Direction, I find that the Applicant's conduct occurred as part of a single incident and has not been repeated since 2014.
2. I do not make any findings as regards paragraph 8.2(3)(b), as regards the cumulative effect of family violence.
3. With regard to paragraph 8.2(3)(c), I find that the Applicant accepts responsibility for his family violence conduct, that he has undertaken rehabilitative programs to address family violence and has expressed remorse for his offending.
4. The Applicant submits that despite the conduct falling within the classification of family violence, the consideration of family violence weighs moderately against the Applicant and in favour of visa cancellation.[59]
5. With regard to paragraph 8.2(3)(d), I find that the Applicant has not re-offended since the offences that occurred in October 2014.

1. I find that primary consideration of family violence weighs strongly against revocation of the mandatory cancellation.

PRIMARY CONSIDERATION: STRENGTH, NATURE AND DURATION OF TIES TO AUSTRALIA

Impact on immediate family members in Australia: 8.3(1)

1. I am to consider any impact of the decision on the Applicant'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.[60]
2. In a form entitled 'Personal Circumstances' completed in 2020, the Applicant indicated that he did not have any immediate family members in Australia.[61] However, the Applicant subsequently disclosed that he has an older brother, whom I will refer to as A, who lives in Australia.[62]
3. Departmental information indicates that A lives in Melbourne with his family and arrived in Australia in 2013.[63] In a protection visa application form which appears to have been completed on 9 August 2024, A indicated that his brother resided in Australia, but that he did not keep in contact with his brother.[64]
4. The Applicant's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, states that A lives in Victoria with his family, and that the Applicant has a close relationship with A.[65]
5. The Applicant gave oral evidence that he has no family in Australia but that his brother lives in Victoria. The Applicant said that he usually speaks to his brother 'every day' but that in the last two or three weeks, he had not spoken to him. The Applicant did not call A as a witness.
6. In closing submissions, Ms Armstrong submitted that the Applicant does not claim that any immediate family members in Australia would be impacted by the decision.
7. I find that the Applicant's brother and his family live in Australia. There is insufficient evidence before the Tribunal to make findings as to their residency status, although the Direction does not preclude me from considering the impact of a decision on family members in Australia regardless of their residency status. While I accept that the Applicant has a relationship with his brother who lives in Victoria, there is insufficient evidence before the Tribunal to make findings as to the impact of the decision on the Applicant's immediate family members living in Australia.
8. I attribute neutral weight to paragraph 8.3(1) of the Direction.

Strength, nature and duration of any other ties: 8.3(2)

1. I am to consider the strength, nature and duration of any other ties that the Applicant has to the Australian community, having regard to:

a) how long the non-citizen has resided in Australia, including whether the non-citizen arrived as a young child, noting that: > > 1. less weight should be given where the non-citizen began offending soon after arriving in Australia; and > 2. more weight should be given to time the non-citizen has spent contributing positively to the Australian community > > b) the strength, duration and nature of any family or social links with Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia.[66]

2. The Applicant arrived in Australia when he was 22, so did not arrive as a young child for the purposes of the Direction.
3. The Applicant has lived in Australia for 14 years. The Applicant has been in prison or in immigration detention for nine of those 14 years. The Applicant's offending was committed in October 2014, two years and 10 months after his arrival in Australia. He has resided in the community since November 2023.
4. The Applicant gave oral evidence that:

(a) he is involved in the Afghan Hazara community in Adelaide, he said that while he is not extremely religious, he goes to the mosque and any celebration or gathering > > (b) he plays tennis with friends > > (c) he has current stable employment > > (d) he maintains strong relationships with friends and has friends in Adelaide and around Australia. > > (e) he cuts his friends' hair > > (f) he is very close to his family that he describes as his 'foster' family, who supported him when he first came to Australia, and is very close to his social worker > > (g) he usually speaks to his brother who lives in Victoria 'every day' but that in the last two or three weeks, he had not spoken to him.

5. As described above, it is submitted that the Applicant's brother and his family live in Victoria and that they maintain a close relationship.
6. [RL] produced letters dated 9 July 2020[67] and 19 December 2025[68]. [RL] met the Applicant in his capacity as a Baptist Care SA volunteer supporting refugees and asylum seekers. [RL] stated that he has seen the Applicant 'grow into a man who is not only remorseful for his actions but now understands the severity of his crime and the consequences it may have had on the victim', and stated that the Applicant 'showed genuine remorse for what had happened and used his time in prison wisely to improve his English, complete a TAFE course, and gain practical job skills'. [RL] invited the Applicant to live in his home when he was released from immigration detention.[69]
7. Other letters of support for the Applicant before the Tribunal are from: [AKR][70] and his wife [WC][71]; [MK][72] who describes herself the Applicant's foster carer from January 2012 for one year when he was under guardianship of the Minister; [SC][73] who met the Applicant in her capacity as social worker.
8. [MC], the Applicant's current employer, produced a letter dated 17 December 2025. He stated that he had known the Applicant for 18 months, since he began working for the company. [MC] describes the Applicant as 'one of the best employees we have had work in the company', and states that he believes the Applicant is '100%' 'fully rehabilitated and is absolutely no chance of reoffending'. [MC] describes how the Applicant 'has become the local barber for staff' cutting hair in his lunchbreak.[74]

Conclusion in relation to strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia

(a) the Applicant has steady employment since mid-2024 and is very highly regarded by his employer > > (b) the Applicant is involved in the Afghan Hazara community in Adelaide, that he attends the mosque and celebrations and gatherings > > (c) the Applicant provides free haircuts for work colleagues and friends > > (d) the Applicant plays tennis with his friends > > (e) the Applicant maintains strong relationships with his 'foster' family, social worker and friends > > (f) the Applicant's brother and his family live in Victoria, and the Applicant submits that they maintain a close relationship.

2. I give weight to the Applicant's positive contributions to the Australian community in terms of his employment, his maintenance of positive friendships, his involvement in the Afghan Hazara community and his provision of free haircuts. I give weight to the ties that the Applicant has developed and maintained with people who he met since he arrived in Australia.
3. Although I am unable to make findings as to the impact of the decision on the Applicant's immediate family living in Australia, I give weight to the Applicant's relationship with his brother who lives in Australia, albeit in a different State.
4. I find that primary consideration 3 weighs moderately in favour of revocation of mandatory cancellation.

PRIMARY CONSIDERATION: BEST INTEREST OF MINOR CHILDREN

1. The Direction requires me to determine whether non-revocation is, or is not, in the best interests of any minor child.
2. The Applicant gave evidence that one of his friends has two minor children living in Melbourne, that he last saw them one year ago and speaks to them on a video call once per week.
3. I asked counsel whether any submission is made by the Applicant as regards consideration of the best interest of minor children. Ms Armstrong submitted that other than the fact of those two children, no submission is made.
4. There is reference in the evidence before the Tribunal to the Applicant's brother living in Australia having a daughter born in 2013, and so it appears that the Applicant has a minor a niece living in Australia.[75] However, the Applicant did not give or submit any evidence regarding a minor niece.
5. I find that there is no evidence before the Tribunal to enable me to make any findings as to whether a non-revocation decision is, or is not, in the best interests of any minor children.
6. I find that the primary consideration of best interests of minor children attracts neutral weight.

PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 5: EXPECTATIONS OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY

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 would not allow them to enter or remain in Australia.[76]
2. Paragraph 8.5(2) directs that visa cancellation or refusal, or non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of a visa, may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences is such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not be granted or continue to hold a visa. In particular, the Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should cancel non-citizens' visas, if they raise serious character concerns through conduct of the kind including 'family violence'.[77]
3. Paragraph 8.5(3) of the Direction states that the expectations outlined in paragraph 8.5 apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
4. The Applicant submits that paragraph 5.2(6) explicitly acknowledges that the community is tolerant of risk. The Applicant submits that considering the Applicant's positive efforts in rehabilitation, time spent living in Australia from a young age, that consideration of the primary consideration of expectations of the Australian community, should be given moderate weight in favour of revocation of the mandatory cancellation.
5. However, paragraph 8.5(4) of the Direction states that this consideration is about expectations of the Australian community as a whole, and decision-makers should proceed on the basis of the Government's views as articulated above, without independently assessing the community's expectations in a particular case. It is not open to me to consider what the community would expect in the Applicant's case.[78]
6. I find that the Applicant has committed offending that is viewed very seriously by the Australian community. I find that the Australian community, as a norm, would expect that the Australian Government would not allow the Applicant to remain in Australia.
7. I find that the primary consideration of expectation of the Australian community weighs against revocation of the cancellation decision.

1. Paragraph 9.1(1) of the Direction provides that decision makers should be mindful that unlawful non-citizens are, in accordance with s 198, liable to removal from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable in the circumstances specified in that section, and in the meantime, detention under s 189, noting also that s 197C(1) of the Act provides that for the purposes of s 198, it is irrelevant whether Australia has non-refoulement obligations in respect of the unlawful non-citizen.
2. Paragraph 9.1(2) explains that a non-refoulement obligation is an obligation not to forcibly return, deport or expel a person to a place where they will be at risk of a specific type of harm. Australia has non-refoulement obligations under the Refugees Convention, the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its Second Optional Protocol. The Migration Act, particularly the concept of 'protection obligations' reflects Australia's interpretation of non-refoulement obligations and the scope of the obligations that Australia is committed to implementing.

1. Paragraph 9.1.1(1) of the Direction indicates that non-refoulement obligations are engaged where a protection finding has been made for a non-citizen in the course of considering a protection visa application. 'Protection finding' is defined in s 197C(4)-(7) of the Migration Act.
2. Paragraph 9.1.1(2) explains that s 197C(3) ensures that, except in the limited circumstances specified in s 197C(3)(c),[79] s 198 does not require or authorise the removal of an unlawful non-citizen to a country in respect of which a 'protection finding' has been made for the non-citizen. As such, the non-citizen cannot be removed to that country in breach of non-refoulement obligations, even if an adverse visa decision under ss 501 or 501CA is made and they become, or remain, an unlawful non-citizen as a result. Instead, the non-citizen must remain in immigration detention as required by s 189 unless, and until, they are granted another visa or they can be removed to a country other than the country by reference to which the protection finding was made.
3. The Respondent submits that the Applicant cannot be removed to Afghanistan given the protection finding.[80] There is no evidence before me that a decision has been made under s 197D(2) that the Applicant is no longer a person in respect of whom a protection finding for Afghanistan would be made.
4. I accept and find that the Applicant cannot be removed to Afghanistan.

Non-refoulement claims in respect of Pakistan

1. Paragraph 9.1.2(1) of the Direction provides that claims which may give risk to international non-refoulement obligations can also be raised by a non-citizen who is not the subject of a protection finding, and where such claims are raised, they must be considered.
2. The Applicant submits that there are non-refoulement obligations in respect of Pakistan, and that he faces a well-founded fear of persecution if he was removed to Pakistan.[81] The Applicant's claims are supported by a statutory declaration, his oral evidence and submissions on country information.
3. The Applicant submits that there would be serious consequences for the Applicant if the Tribunal decides that non-refoulement obligations do not exist in relation to the Applicant being removed to Pakistan and the real risk that he would be indefinitely detained.[82]
4. Counsel for the Respondent submitted that it is open to the Tribunal to reach a view on the plausibility of the Applicant's claimed fear of harm in Pakistan and observed that the Applicant did not mention a fear of persecution in his original application for a protection visa. Counsel submitted that the Tribunal might accept, at face value, that the Applicant fears harm upon return to Pakistan, and that that the Tribunal should proceed to make an assessment as provided for by paragraph 9.1.2 of the Direction.

Can the Applicant apply for a protection visa in respect of Pakistan?

1. Paragraph 9.1.2(2) provides that where it is open to the non-citizen to apply for a protection visa, it is not necessary, at the s 501/501CA stage to consider non-refoulement issues in the same level of detail as those types of issues are considered in a protection visa application.
2. The Respondent submits that the effect of an outcome which affirms the delegate's decision would mean that the Applicant is prevented, by s 48A of the Migration Act, from applying for another protection visa.[83] There is no suggestion that the Minister might determine that s 48A does not apply to him and permit the Applicant to file a protection visa application in respect of Pakistan.
3. I accept that if mandatory cancellation is not revoked, it will not be open to the Applicant to apply for a protection visa in respect of Pakistan. It is clear from High Court authority and the Direction that the consideration of non-refoulement obligations can only be deferred if a valid application for a protection visa can be made.[84]

1. Paragraph 9.1.2(3) of the Direction provides that non-refoulement obligations that have been identified for a non-citizen with respect to a country, via an International Treaties Obligations Assessment or some other process outside the protection visa process, would not engage s 197(3) to preclude removal of the non-citizen to that country. In these circumstances, in making a decision under s 501CA, I am required to carefully weigh any non-refoulement obligation against the seriousness of the non-citizen's criminal offending or other serious conduct. However, that does not mean an adverse decision cannot be made for the non-citizen. Non-revocation will not necessarily result in the removal of the non-citizen to the country in respect of which the non-refoulement obligation exists.
2. I am satisfied that a decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation may result in the Applicant's removal to Pakistan. The terms of the Direction and judicial authority both suggest that the key question in the consideration of international non-refoulement obligations is whether a decision is likely to result in a breach of Australia's international non-refoulement obligations.[85]
3. Caselaw indicates that I am required to apply the real risk or real chance standard.[86]
4. In a statement made on 5 January 2026, the Applicant submitted information for a protection visa based on his Pakistani citizenship, included the following.[87]

...I am a member of the Hazara ethnic group and a Shia Muslim. > > In Pakistan, Hazara Shias are targeted by extremist groups...like the Pakistani Taliban and Islamic State Khorason Province (ISIS-K).... > > My parents left Afghanistan...and relocated to Pakistan...and obtained Pakistani citizenship...they later travelled to Iran in search of a better life. > > Around 2005 or 2006 once again my dad decided to take the family back to Pakistan. I [remained] alone in Iran. Around 2009, I was deported to Afghanistan due to not having documentation. Afterward, I found a way to travel to Pakistan in order to [be] reunited with my family. > > ...I had no local knowledge and the language barrier made daily life even harder....During that time, life for Hazara people was especially harsher. There was constant fear due to widespread violence and reports of targeted attacks against the Hazara community, which created an atmosphere of insecurity and trauma. > > Even during the short time...the Hazara community in Quetta never accepted me because I spent most of my life living in Iran. I was discriminated against due to my Persian accent.... > > ...I personally witnessed an attack in which gunmen opened fire on a small passenger van carrying members of my Hazara community, including women and children. Many lives were lost.... > > ... > > I would also face problems because of the poor quality of medical care available to me...for my Crohn's disease. As Hazara Shia are treated as lower class citizens, and are persistently discriminated against, I would have a high change of not getting care in Pakistan.... > > Recently, the Pakistani government has been deporting many Afghans to Afghanistan. They are targeting Hazaras specifically...Even if we have Pakistani documents, they consider us all to be Afghan due to our Hazara facial features and can then detain us. This is very dangerous for me as I cannot speak Urdu... > > I would also be returning to Pakistan as a failed asylum seeker from a Western country....

5. The Applicant filed a document described as a compilation of recent, publicly available information country conditions in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (Country Information submissions).[88] It includes information, referenced to country information sources, about:

(a) attacks on Hazara communities living in Quetta in Pakistan since 2012 > > (b) discrimination against the Hazara Shias in Pakistan during the COVID 19 pandemic > > (c) persecution of the Pakistani state against a Hazara community organiser living in New York > > (d) difficulty seeking medical care for Hazara people, both because of discrimination, an inability to cross checkpoints, risk of attacks outside of Hazara enclaves and because of a formal policy of denial based on ethnic residency.

6. The Country Information submissions indicates that many Hazaras live in a state of confinement within specific enclaves, with the physical segregation having direct consequences for access to essential services.
7. The Country Information submissions indicates that those who identify as Shia Muslims are 'marked for systematic annihilation by militant groups and institutionalised repression by the Pakistani state'. Shia Muslims face harm from a 'coalition of sectarian militant groups'. The document describes:

(a) violence against Shia Muslims over two decades, including an attack on a Shia gathering in 2024 which killed 1050 people > > (b) how the persecution of Shia Muslims is actively perpetrated by the state, through its legislation, judicial and administrative arms > > (c) how Shia Muslims face denial of medical care.

8. It is submitted that a Hazara who cannot speak the language at all is 'rendered utterly defenceless'.
9. The Applicant submits that in 2023, the Pakistani government introduced a policy for the repatriation of 'illegal foreigners', The Pakistani authorities engage in ethnic and linguistic profiling of individuals perceived to be Afghan and they are subject to detention and deportation. The Applicant submits that this puts members of groups such as Hazaras at particular risk, and those who do not speak Urdu are reported to face additional barriers in communicating with authorities and navigating bureaucratic processes.
10. The Country Information submissions report that failed asylum seekers attract a risk of serious harm in Pakistan, and those who are Hazara may face an 'elevated and more severe level of risk'. It is reported that Balochistan (especially Quetta) is a high-risk area. Hazara Shias are visible targets for militant groups who view returnees as Westernised and sources of extortion. It is reported that particular groups carry out attacks against Western targets. It is reported that involuntary return to Pakistan carries immediate risks of detention and legal penalty. Those who have committed crimes abroad may be arrested and held on remand.
11. It is submitted that country information conclusively demonstrates that Hazara Shias cannot avail themselves of protection of the Pakistani state, and that the state is an active participant in discrimination and violence.

1. I acknowledge the concerns raised by the Respondent as regards the plausibility of the Applicant's claims concerning harm in Pakistan. However, relying on International Assessment Treaties Obligation Assessment report dated 18 March 2021, I find that the Applicant is Hazara and of Shia Muslim faith.

During the Entry Interview and POE process, the [Applicant] spoke fluent Hazaragi with the interpreter. Hazaragi is a dialect of Dari (Persian dialect) which is the main language spoken by Hazaras in Afghanistan.

Based on the claimant's language ability, his physical appearance...I am satisfied that the claimant is an Afghan Hazara youth...[89]

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) advises that the overwhelming majority of Hazaras are of Shia Muslim faith [DFAT Country Information report Afghanistan 27 June 2019].

1. I have regard to the Applicant's brother's application for a protection visa which is in evidence before the Tribunal, and together with the Applicant's evidence to the Tribunal, I find that members of the Applicant's family live in Quetta in Pakistan.
2. The Country Information submissions indicate that the Applicant would face either a real chance of serious harm because of his Hazara ethnicity and his Muslim Shia faith if he were to return to Pakistan. The Country Information indicates that this would be in the way of a real chance of significant physical harassment, significant physical ill-treatment, or significant economic hardship that threatens his capacity to subsist. The Country Information submissions indicate that as a Hazara Shia Muslim in Pakistan, the Applicant would face a real risk of significant harm in the way of being subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
3. There is insufficient evidence before me as to the Applicant's particular circumstances to enable me to make positive findings as regards whether the harm faced by the Applicant relates to all areas of Pakistan, whether the Applicant could safely relocate to any areas of Pakistan, or whether there are effective protection measures available for the Applicant in Pakistan.
4. I am satisfied, and find, that on the face of the Applicant's claims and the Country Information submissions that Australia's non-refoulement obligations arise as regards the Applicant's removal to Pakistan.
5. I find that this consideration weighs very heavily in favour of revocation of mandatory cancellation.

Indefinite detention and removal to a third country

1. The Respondent submits that if mandatory cancellation is not revoked the following consequences arise.

(a) The Applicant would continue to hold the BVR, but that would cease if the Minister gives the Applicant notice under cl 070.511(c) of Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994. > > (b) If the BVR ceased, the Applicant would be liable to be detained pending removal from Australia, unless he is granted another visa. If it became clear that there was no real prospect of removal to Pakistan becoming practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future, and if there was no other country to which the Applicant could be removed, he would again be entitled to be released from detention. [90]

2. As a result of legislative changes made in 2024, if there is 'no real prospect of the removal of the Applicant from Australia becoming practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future'[91] indefinite detention is now no longer a likely consequence for people for whom there is no real prospect of removal from Australia becoming practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future at the time of the Tribunal's decision.[92]
3. Given the Minister's position articulated above, and my finding as regards non-refoulement obligations being engaged for the Applicant in respect of return to Pakistan, I am satisfied that there is a real possibility that the Applicant's removal from Australia would not be reasonably practicable with the consequence that the Applicant faces the prospect of removal to a third country or conditions imposed by way of a BVR, which can include restrictions such as curfews and the mandatory wearing of monitoring devices.[93]
4. The Migration Amendment Act 2024 and Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Act 2024 established a legislative framework relating to certain non-citizens who are on a removal pathway, enabling their removal to a third country where an operative agreement exists with that country.
5. Following a request by the Tribunal during the hearing, the Minister's representative emailed the Tribunal (with a copy to the Applicant's solicitor) a written copy of oral submissions made by counsel. The email stated the following.

The Tribunal must apply Direction 110 by reference to the facts and circumstances that presently exist. It is not for the Tribunal to speculate as to what events may or may not occur in the future: see eg. KZYH and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] ARTA 1718 at [175], [183]; GMCM and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] ARTA 2450 at [137] (GMCM); Ali v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 650 at [31]- [33]; DOB18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1523 at [35]. There is no evidence that any steps have been taken by the Respondent for the purposes of the removal of the applicant from Australia, and removal to a third country would require the consent and approval of that third country. Whether those matters can, and will, occur in the future are speculative contingencies (see eg. ZHBN and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] ARTA 2765 at [95]). As the Tribunal explained in GMCM at [136]:

...the 'removal pathway' arising from the applicant being on a BVR needs to be placed in context. There is, presently, no other country but Nauru with which the Commonwealth has entered an arrangement for removal of people to whom Australia has non-refoulement obligations and who no longer have a right to remain in Australia. Presently, the applicant is not person in respect of whom steps have been taken for the purpose of removing him to Nauru. It follows that if the decision to refuse the grant of the visa is affirmed the applicant will remain in the community on the BVR. There is, as the Minister accepts, a possibility of that changing but the Tribunal cannot speculate on what might occur. As pointed out in KZYH with reference to Federal Court authority, I must apply Direction 110 by reference to the facts and circumstances that presently exist. I cannot speculate as to the future.[94]

1. I find there is no evidence before the Tribunal that any steps have been taken by the Minister for the purposes of removal of the Applicant from Australia, and I find that removal to a third country is not an automatic consequence of non-revocation in this case. I consider it appropriate to apply the Direction by reference to the facts and circumstances that presently exist and not speculate as to the future.[95]
2. However, I am guided, but not bound, by the approach of Senior Member Murphy in ZHBN and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Migration) [2025] ARTA 2765[96] in finding that a non-revocation decision may expose the Applicant to a process where he could be potentially removed to a third country without any avenue for review, or exposed to strict BVR conditions or restrictions, and that those are significant adverse consequences for the Applicant.
3. The Respondent submits that if mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's protection visa is revoked, the Applicant's protection visa would be reinstated and the BVR would cease to be in effect under s 82(3) of the Migration Act.[97]
4. Given the enduring and significant adverse legal consequences for the Applicant if the mandatory cancellation is not revoked, I find that the consideration of legal consequences weighs very heavily in favour of revoking mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's protection visa.

1. Paragraph 9.2 requires consideration of 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 age and health, whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers; and any social, medical and/or economic support available to them in that country.
2. The Applicant submits that as he is precluded from apply for another protection visa because of s 48 of the Migration Act, this consideration would have to weigh much greater than the Direction affords.[98]

1. The Applicant is 36 years of age.
2. In the Applicant's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, it is submitted that the Applicant has been diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, anxiety, depression and ulcerative colitis (Crohn's disease). The colitis causes chronic digestive symptoms, including persistent diarrhoea, abdominal pain, and weight loss. He has been on prescribed medication since 2018.[99]
3. The Applicant gave evidence that he stopped taking medication for Crohn's Disease, and that it is triggered by stress and poor diet. He said that at the moment he 'manages it well'.
4. Dr Balfour reported that the Applicant described his general physical health as 'excellent', and the last time he had a major inflammatory event related to his Crohn's Disease was in 2021. The Applicant reported seeing a gastroenterologist who monitors his condition, and that his symptoms are manageable.
5. Dr Balfour diagnosed the Applicant with CPTSD and noted that the Applicant is not presently undertaking treatment for any mental health condition.
6. The Applicant gave evidence that he plays tennis and enjoys keeping fit.
7. I find that the Applicant has been diagnosed with both CPTSD and PTSD, depression, anxiety, depression and ulcerative colitis (Crohn's disease). I find that the colitis causes chronic digestive symptoms, including persistent diarrhoea, abdominal pain, and weight loss. While the Applicant has taken prescribed medication, I am not satisfied that he currently takes any prescribed medication, and I find that he manages his Crohn's disease at present.

1. The Applicant submits that he has not lived in Pakistan and does not know the language there.
2. I refer to the Applicant's evidence under the non-refoulement claims as regards the language and cultural barriers the Applicant claims he will face, including that he does not speak Urdu. I accept that the Applicant does not speak Urdu.
3. I am satisfied that not speaking Urdu would be a barrier or impediment for the Applicant if returned to Pakistan.

Social, medical and/or economic support available

1. The Applicant submits that there are concerns about proper treatment of his health conditions if removed to Pakistan.[100]
2. Mr Balfour reported that the Applicant informed him that his parents and sister have lived in Pakistan for 20 years, that his parents live in Quetta, Pakistan and that he communicates with his family every couple of days. Dr Balfour reported the Applicant telling him that he has a very close relationship with his father and mother, and that he must support his parents financially.
3. While imprisoned, the Applicant completed courses in business, sports and recreation, retail and cooking. In prison he worked in the metal shop and as a cook. The Applicant cuts his friends' and co-workers' hair. Since mid-2024 the Applicant has been working full-time as a tyre fitter. The evidence indicates that Applicant has developed good English language skills since his arrival in Australia.
4. I find that the Applicant would be able to draw on his employment history and skills in the future. I find that the Applicant's family live in Quetta, and that the Applicant has a close relationship with his family.
5. However, given my finding in relation to non-refoulement obligations, I consider that there are significant impediments that the Applicant may face if removed to Pakistan in establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards due to barriers in accessing employment and accessing medical treatment, in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country.
6. I find that other consideration 9.2 weighs heavily in favour of revocation of the cancellation decision.

1. Paragraph 9.3 requires decision-makers to consider any impact on Australian business interests if the Applicant is not allowed to remain in Australia. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that Australian business interests will be impacted if the Applicant is not allowed to remain in Australia, and so I give other consideration 9.3 neutral weight.

1. Clause 7 of the Direction sets out the way in which the relevant considerations are to be taken into account and weighed. The Full Court of the Federal Court in CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs said:

The balancing process is directed to determining whether there is "another reason" why the visa cancellation should be revoked. It requires an identification of the matters that may constitute "another reason" and bringing to bear the considerations that the Direction requires the Tribunal to take into account where relevant in determining whether or not the Tribunal is satisfied that there is another reason (or reasons) to revoke the visa cancellation. Some of the considerations set out in the Direction, where relevant, may weigh in favour of revocation, and so may constitute "another reason" capable of supporting the state of satisfaction required in order for revocation under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) to occur. But whether they do qualify as a reason of that kind will need to be assessed in the context of different considerations set out in the Direction which may weigh against revocation, where relevant. That is why it is appropriate to describe it as a process of weighing and balancing.[101]

1. I have found that the Applicant's offending was very serious, and while I find his risk of re-offending to be low, I find that his rehabilitation is vulnerable. The protection of the Australian community weighs strongly in favour of non-revocation of mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's protection visa, as does the consideration of family violence. The expectations of the Australian community weigh moderately in favour of non-revocation.
2. The strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia weigh moderately in favour of revocation of the mandatory cancellation. The legal consequences of the decision are significant for the Applicant. I find the consideration of legal consequences to weigh very heavily in favour of revocation, as does the consideration of extent of impediments if the Applicant is removed.
3. Paragraph 7(2) of the Direction provides that the primary consideration of the protection of the Australian community is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations, and otherwise primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than other considerations. Paragraph 7(3) states that one or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations. In this case, I find no reason to depart from the general guidance for weighting given under the Direction.
4. I find that the primary considerations of protection of the Australian community, family violence and expectations of the Australian community outweigh the primary consideration of nature, strength and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia and other considerations of legal consequences and extent of impediments if removed.
5. I am not satisfied that there is another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation, and I affirm the decision under review.

1. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

I certify that the preceding two hundred and twenty seven (227) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision of Senior Member C Shepherd.

[4] DAQ22 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCASJ27 (25 June 2024).

[14] Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, [15].

[16] As indicated by sentencing remarks made on 18 December 2015 (HB59).

[17] Reflected in progress notes of International Health and Medical Services in 2022 (HB780); and in mental health screening on 8 July 2023 (HB313).

[22] Section 501(7)(c).

[23] Paragraph 5.1(1) of the Direction.

[24] Paragraph 5.1(2) of the Direction.

[26] Paragraph 8.1(1) of the Direction.

[30] Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Ali [2000] FCA 1385; (2000) 106 FCR 313 at [41].

[31] Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a) of the Direction.

[32] Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(d) of the Direction.

[34] Paragraph 8.1.2(1) of the Direction.

[35] Applicant's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, [37].

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

[47] Consistent with the Applicant's evidence to the Tribunal.

[49] Applicant's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, [34]-[39].

[53] Applicant's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, [32].

[54] PHTP and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2026] ARTA 60 (9 January 2026), [101]-[102].

[58] Applicant's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, [42].

[59] Applicant's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, [45].

[60] Paragraph 8.3(1) of the Direction.

[65] Applicant's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, [49].

[66] Paragraph 8.3(2)(a)-(b) of the Direction.

[76] Paragraph 8.5(1) of the Direction.

[78] FYBR v MHA [2019] FCAFC 185 at [103].

[79] That is where (a) the decision in which that finding was made has not been set aside/quashed and (b) a decision under s 197D(2) has not been made, and (c) the non-citizen has not asked to be removed.

[80] Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, [37.2].

[81] Applicant's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, [63]-[64].

[82] Reply to Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, filed 20 January 2026.

[83] Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions [37.1].

[84] Direction 110, pt 2, paragraph 9.1.2(2) and Plaintiff M1/2021 v MHA [2022] HCA 17 at [9], [30] and [42].

[85] BCR16 v MIBP (2017) 248 FCR 456 at [48].

[86] MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33; (2013) 210 FCR 505 at [246]-[247].

[90] Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, [37].

[91] NZYQ v MICMA [2023] HCA 37 at [54].

[92] For example, reg 2.25AB of the Regulations as amended by the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visas) Regulations 2024 applying to visas granted on or after 11 April 2024.

[93] Clause 070.6, Sch 2 to the Regulations sets out conditions which must or may be imposed on grant of a BVR. Conditions 8620 (curfew) and 8621 (wearing a monitoring device) of Sch 8 to the Regulations are specified in cl 070.612A.

[94] Email to Tribunal and Applicant's solicitor, 23 January 2026.

[95] KZYH and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] ARTA 1718 at [175] and [185].

[97] Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, [37.3].

[98] Applicant's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, [69].

[99] Applicant's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, [66].

[100] Applicant's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, [67].

[101] CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [ 2023] FCAFC 138.