1. The Applicant was self-represented before the Tribunal.
2. Information provided by the Applicant to the Department has been included in the G Documents and has been taken into account.
3. The Applicant provided a Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, dated 28 August 2025, and an accompanying evidence bundle.
4. At the hearing dates 10 and 11 September 2025, I heard evidence from:
   • The Applicant;
   • The Applicant's mother;
   • The Applicant's younger brother Jacob;
   • The Applicant's younger brother Dylan;
   • The Applicant's former employer, Tony Gale;
   • The Applicant's friend Damien Walsh; and
   • The Applicant's friend Nathan Ryles.

1. I have been provided with the G Documents, dated 16 July 2025.
2. The Respondent provided a Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, dated 22 August 2025, accompanied by a news article about the attack dated 1 January 2020.
3. The Respondent provided supplementary documents produced under summons by the Department for Correctional Services, Christies Beach Magistrates Court, and Adelaide Magistrates Court, also provided on 22 August 2025.

1. Section 501CA of the Act applies where the Minister makes a decision under s 501(3A) to cancel a visa that has been granted to a person.
2. Subsection 501(3A) of the Act requires the Minister to cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if the Minister is satisfied that the person does not pass the character test due to the operation of sections 501(6)(a) and 501(7)(c). Paragraph 501(6)(a) provides that a person does not pass the character test if they have a 'substantial criminal record'. Paragraph 501(7)(c) provides that a person has a substantial criminal record if the person has been sentenced to a term of 12 months' imprisonment or more.
3. The Minister may revoke the original cancellation decision pursuant to s 501CA(4) of the Act.
4. Paragraph 500(1)(ba) of the Act provides the Tribunal with the power to review decisions of a delegate of the Minister under s 501CA(4) not to revoke a decision to cancel a visa.
5. The Minister has made written directions under s 499 of the Act which apply to decision‑makers in the exercise of power under s 501CA. The relevant direction is Direction No. 110 - Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (the Direction).
6. Paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110 provides overarching principles which I have considered when reviewing the Applicant's application. It relevantly provides:

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

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

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

(4) The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they engaged in conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, that raises serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable 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 non­citizen'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. Part 2 of the Direction identifies the considerations the Tribunal must take into account where relevant to a decision. They are relevant in this case.
2. In applying the considerations, information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight. The primary consideration of the 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. One or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.
3. The primary considerations in the Direction are:

(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; and

(5) expectations of the Australian community.

1. The other considerations set out in Direction 110 which must be taken into account where relevant include, but are not limited to:

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

1. Sections 501(6) and 501(7)(c) of the Act preclude a person from passing the character test if they have a substantial criminal record, which includes a person who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.
2. It is not contested in this case that the Applicant does not pass the character test.
3. The remaining issue before me therefore is whether I am satisfied that there is another reason to revoke the cancellation of his visa.

Whether the visa cancellation should be revoked - s 501CA(4)

1. I must therefore consider and determine whether there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked. The Minister has issued a direction as to the exercise of the power under s 501CA(4) of the Act. Section 499 of the Act requires the Tribunal to comply with Direction 110.
2. Having regard to the principles in Paragraph 5.2 of the Direction, as well as the requirement in section 6 in relation to making a decision, and noting the information on weighing sources and considerations appropriately at section 7, I turn to the considerations in sections 8 and 9 of the Direction.

**_(1) When considering 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. Decision makers should have particular regard to the principle that entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, will respect important institutions and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.

(2) Decision-makers should also give consideration to:

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

_**

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

8.1.1 The nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct to date

1. The Direction provides a framework at paragraph 8.1.1 to consider the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's conduct, including specifying types of conduct which are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian community, including violent crimes.
2. The offending is set out in the National Criminal History Check and the sentencing remarks of Judge Cuthbertson of the District Court of South Australia.[13] His Honour's remarks are given significant weight because the criminal court had access to all the evidence and information utilised at the trial. His Honour noted that the Applicant and his co-accused were part of a large group of persons who on New Year's Eve 2012, 'in a cowardly fashion and armed with weapons, attacked a group of New year revellers.' The judge recounts that the Applicant, his co-offender, a further offender and possibly a fourth person, attacked a person outside the party. They then went to the Applicant's house, where, with a larger group and armed with weapons, they returned to the location of the party and went inside the premises with the intention of causing further harm to the persons at the party. They then proceeded to attack the persons at the party with pieces of wood used as weapons. The Judge states that the attack was merciless and unrelenting. The Judge notes that the attack was a joint enterprise to assault and cause harm and each was responsible for the acts of the other members of the attacking party which comprised at least 10 persons, and in the view of the Judge, the Applicant was a significant and willing participant in the attack which took place following their participation in the earlier incident outside the premises. The injuries the Applicant either individually or as part of the joint enterprise caused, included a fractured skull, a fractured eye socket, a man knocked unconscious, and injuries to the person assaulted in the street. Many of the victims had psychological sequelae.
3. The Applicant in his Statement of Facts Issues and Contentions (SFIC) acknowledges the seriousness of his past offences and accepts full responsibility for them.[14] At the hearing the Applicant appeared to acknowledge the seriousness of the offending, whilst minimising his role in the offending to some extent. He claimed that his recollection was that he was not involved in the attack outside the premises. He indicated that he had gone to the premises from his house. The Applicant did acknowledge that he had been involved in the attacks and took responsibility for his parts in those attacks. His witnesses, friends and family, all indicated that they had some awareness of the offending and the seriousness of that offending.
4. The Respondent in their SFIC posited that the index offences constituted violent criminal conduct and are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and community.[15] Noting that the offending involved coordinated group violence with multiple aggravating features including the use of weapons, multiple offenders, targeting innocent individuals in public and private settings, presence of women and children during the attack and the escalation from the initial assault to a coordinate group attack. The Minister submits that there was a deliberate and premeditated escalation of violence between the initial and group attack and that the Applicant's conduct reflects a complete disregard for the safety, dignity and autonomy of others, that this type of violent conduct strikes at the heart of community safety and public order and must be viewed with the utmost seriousness.
5. Further, the Minister submits that the imposition of a custodial sentence must be viewed as a reflection of the objective gravity of the offences, incarceration is a penalty of last resort within the sentencing hierarchy, and the Applicant' sentence of eight years' imprisonment is indicative of the seriousness with which the offending was viewed by the sentencing court.[16] The Minister's submissions also, rightly, note the impact on the victims as referred to above in Judge Cuthbertson's sentencing remarks, referring to the news reporting in the article attached to the Respondent's SFIC.
6. In her closing statement, the Minister's representative noted that the Applicant at the hearing had sought to minimise his involvement by claiming he had not been involved in the attack outside the premises, in contrast with the sentencing judge's remarks, that the conduct was disgraceful and demanded significant penalties, and that the Applicant whilst only 19 at the time of the offending was the eldest and should have known better.
7. The Applicant's other offending is set out above. It includes offences prior to the index offending as well as offending afterwards.
8. The Applicant stated at the hearing that the offending which occurred after the index offending was low level, did not involve violence, and was because he was despairing and lost after the index offending and his fear or expectation that he would be jailed as a result.
9. In the Respondent's SFIC the Respondent notes that whilst the other offending may be regarded as less serious than the index offences, it is submitted that they reflect a sustained pattern of disregard for the law and community safety, and noting that the Applicant was jailed for seven days in 2016 for fail to comply with bail agreement and drive under disqualification or suspended, conduct which occurred after the index offence but while the Applicant was awaiting trial. It is submitted that the other offending is not isolated but frequent and demonstrates an entrenched disregard for legal obligations as well as a crime of public disorder in relation to the resisting police offending.
10. I note that the Applicant maintains that the 2016 offending was a mistake or mix up which his mother and family attempted to sort out and to which he claims he should not have pled guilty to.
11. The Respondent also notes the offending which resulted in penalties without conviction both before and after the index offending and further demonstrates the Applicant's lack of respect for lawful authority, as well as the traffic-related offending which the Respondent rightly notes can be considered very serious or serious in nature because they may endanger road users and if repeated may indicate a disregard for laws and authority and a disregard for the safety of innocent members of the community who share the roads.[17]
12. The Respondent further submits that the failure of the Applicant to declare his criminal convictions on his incoming passenger card on three occasions may be viewed as misleading information provided to the Department.
13. The Applicant submits in relation to his declarations on his passenger cards that he was of the view that his offences as at these dates had all been recorded without conviction.
14. In considering the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's offending and conduct, I have taken into account the above, the Respondent's documents, the Applicant's statements and evidence at the hearing acknowledging his past offending and the sentencing remarks of the Judge.
15. Considering this information, I find that the Applicant has been convicted of violent crimes, as set out in 8.1.1(1)(a)(i) in relation to the index offending and other offences committed prior to this offending. It is important to be clear about why such offences are specified at this point in the Direction. Such offences create a real sense of fear, anger and shock not only in the victims but in other people in the community who should expect to be able to live freely without violence being perpetrated against them. Such conduct, of a non-citizen or otherwise, should be condemned. The index offending, in particular, was clearly of such severity, violence, and with the aggravating factors considered above that it is, I find, very serious. My view on this is further reinforced when considering the sentence which was imposed on the Applicant. I have also taken into account that the offending had a significant and continuing impact on the victims, as specified in 8.1.1(1)(d).
16. Whilst I accept that the Applicant committed offences which I view seriously before ethe index offending, I am also mindful that I am not aware of the circumstances behind these offences, that most were recorded without conviction, and that after the index offending the Applicant did commit offences but they do not appear to have been offences involving violence or significant violence. I therefore take the view that the offending of the Applicant does not indicate a trend of increasing seriousness.
17. I am largely persuaded by the submissions of the Respondent in relation to this factor. I find in this case that the Applicant's offending is best characterised as very serious, as reflected by the type of offending, the aggravating factors and the sentence imposed.

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

1. Paragraph 8.1.2(1) of Direction 110 provides that the Australian community's tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. This entails the cumulative consideration of the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct. In assessing the risk posed by the non-citizen to the Australian community, consideration should be given to the nature of harm and the likelihood of further criminal or other serious conduct. (para 8.1.2(2)).
2. The Respondent contends that the nature of the harm arising from the index offences was significant. As above, I accept this contention. I accept that any future offending of a similar nature would result in significant harm to the Australian community including serious physical and psychological harm.
3. When considering the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, I have had regard to information and evidence on the risk of the Applicant re-offending, and evidence of rehabilitation achieved as at the time of the decision.
4. I have not had the benefit of any expert evidence on the risk of the Applicant re-offending. There are, however, a number of factors which assist when considering whether the Applicant will re-offend.
5. The Applicant was 19 at the time of the offending and is now 33 years old. He has provided copious evidence of the effort he has undertaken whilst incarcerated to direct himself to courses and programs which address the root causes of his violent offending. He has a daughter whom, I accept, he desperately wishes to be reconciled with and have caring responsibilities. He has in place durable support structures which were tested at the hearing for a place to live, a supportive network of family and friends, and an offer of full-time employment.
6. At the hearing and in his SFIC, the Applicant contends that the offending took place when he was young, and that he is now more mature in his thinking and outlook, including the way that he views the offending. The Applicant maintains that he has undertaken course and programs whilst incarcerated which demonstrates his rehabilitation and low risk of future offending. He claims that after he was released on bail, he was in full-time employment and became a father, did not reoffend, indicating successful reintegration and low risk of future offending. He notes the support structures he has in place.
7. The Respondent acknowledges the fact the index offences took place when the Applicant was 19 and he is now in his early thirties, but contends that the Applicant's conduct since that time, including further offending and failures to comply with legal obligations undermines his rehabilitation claims. The Respondent contends that the offending which occurred after the index offending includes resisting police and disorderly behaviour which demonstrates a lack of respect for legal processes and suggests that his rehabilitation is untested in the community. The Respondent acknowledges the Applicant's expressions of remorse and evidence of rehabilitation including vocational training and support from family members but notes the Applicant maintained a plea of not guilty and only later accepted responsibility for the index offending and refused to assist police to identify co-offenders in the attack.
8. The Respondent goes on to maintain that the Applicant, whilst having completed a number of rehabilitation programs and vocational course, these learnings have not been meaningfully tested in the community and the Applicant has not provided sufficient evidence that he has addressed the underlying drivers of his offending, including alcohol use and violent tendencies. The Respondent concludes that the gravity of the harm that may result is such that any risk is unacceptable, and that as per paragraph 5.2(2) of the Direction, the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government, meaning this consideration weight very heavily against revocation.
9. At the hearing the Applicant was able to expand on his claims, and have them tested by the Respondent. I was troubled by the Applicant's conditional taking of responsibility, claiming that he did not recall being involved in the initial attack outside the premises despite the clear indication in the sentencing remarks of his involvement. However, he did acknowledge that he engaged in the violence within the premises and took responsibility both individually and as a part of the joint enterprise.
10. The Applicant was able to elaborate on his claims of rehabilitation, describing the programs and the learnings form those programs that he took part in, and the program that he assisted in designing for fellow inmates on drivers and causes of offending and ways of reducing stress and acknowledging but not acting on anger. It was clear from his evidence that he took some considerable responsibility for the offending and had a deal of insight into the effect the offending had on the victims. Whilst in prison the Applicant engaged in a large range of courses, both anger management, dealing with emotions, but also a large range of vocational training. The Applicant has derived considerable benefits from these courses, both from a perspective of managing the drivers of past behaviour, because they will strengthen his ability to enter the workforce and continue in the workforce, but also because the Applicant being engaged and undertaking these activities may indicate his capacity to move beyond the person he was when he committed the index offences.
11. I also consider it significant that the Applicant's evidence was that he was released on parole, which indicates that the relevant authorities had assessed the risk of the Applicant to the community as sufficiently low to be able to grant parole.
12. I heard evidence, which again was tested by the Respondent, from the Applicant's family and friends, all of whom indicated they were aware of the offending. All were able to provide detailed information of how they would support the Applicant and ensure he was a law-abiding member of the community if released. The Applicant has current offers of full-time employment.
13. The Applicant provided evidence, as did his mother and brothers, that his relationship with his daughter is of real and genuine import to him. The Applicant's dedication to having some role in his daughter's life appears genuine, as does his very considerable connection to his family. I have had regard to the evidence of his mother and brothers that the Applicant is both supported by them but also in turn supports them.
14. The totality of this evidence demonstrates, firstly, that the Applicant has taken real steps towards rehabilitation, having undertaken relevant courses and programs and having assisted in designing such a program. It is true that this has not been tested in the community, the Applicant on being paroled having been taken into immigration detention, but the information I have before me does indicate considerable work by the Applicant on rehabilitating himself.
15. Secondly, the evidence goes towards weighing the risk of the Applicant re-offending. I note in this respect that the Applicant's evidence was that he was released on parole. This is significant. It is indicative that the relevant authorities considered that he was of sufficiently low risk to the community to be released on parole. It is also significant that the Applicant whilst incarcerated has engaged in programs and courses, some directed towards the causes and triggers of his violent offending, and others towards his trade and vocational skills. The Applicant's age, or rather the fact that he is no longer a young man is also worthy of consideration. The offers of employment are significant. But of most significance is his what appears genuine wish to be involved in his daughter's life and to be a father, in his words, 'to give her the father he did not have'. I do consider that this consideration genuinely motivates him to be released and not to jeopardise the relationship by re-offending.
16. I accept that the Applicant has shown some insight and remorse for his violent offending, that he has engaged in significant training and coursework which will assist him to not re-offend, and that he has the range of significant protective factors discussed above, which are all demonstrative of a view that the risk of him re-offending is low.
17. In weighing the risk to the community, I find that the offending was very serious. Whilst I accept that the harm that would be suffered by the community were the Applicant to reoffend would be serious, I accept that the considerable changes in the Applicant, and the protective factors of his family, work, and wishing to be a father to his daughter, demonstrate the risk of the Applicant reoffending is low.
18. In considering the protection of the Australian community, I have had regard to the fact that the safety of the Australian community is justifiably the highest priority of the Australian government. The offending here was very serious. However, it does not diminish the very serious nature of the Applicant's offending to accept, as I do, that the index offending took place some considerable years ago, that the Applicant has demonstrated real and positive steps towards rehabilitation, has insight, and most importantly has a range of protective factors set out above which significantly reduce the risk of the Applicant re-offending in a violent manner.
19. I find that despite the very serious nature of the offending, the risk of the Applicant reoffending, as considered in detail above, and therefore the risk to the community, is low and therefore this factor only weighs moderately towards non-revocation.

1. Paragraph 8.2 of Direction 110 concerns family violence. The consideration is engaged where the person has been convicted or otherwise had charges proven of family violence, or there is information or evidence from independent sources indicating the Applicant has committed family violence.
2. There is no evidence that this consideration is relevant in this case and I find this consideration is neutral.

8.3 Strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia

1. In accordance with paragraph 8.3(1) of the Direction, I have considered the 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. I have also had regard to the strength, nature and duration of any other ties that the non-citizen has to the Australian community, having regard to the period the person has resided in Australia (para 8.3(2)(a)), and 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 (para 8.3(2)(b)).
2. The Applicant arrived in Australia in 1994 when he was four years old. He has therefore spent most of his formative years and his adult years, in Australia.
3. The Applicant, his mother and brothers have described the Applicant's childhood and life in Australia prior to the index offending. It is clear that the family are tightly knit, that the Applicant has helped his mother, as a single parent, to raise his brothers, contributing financially, practically and emotionally to the family. The Applicant's brothers spoke of the support they derive from the Applicant. they all spoke of the devastation they would experience if the Applicant's visa remained cancelled, and he was removed to New Zealand. His mother explained that because she did not have the financial capacity, were her son to be removed to New Zealand, she would likely never see him again. All provided compelling evidence of the very significant impact that the cancellation had already had on the family, with a reduction in contact compared to the Applicant's time in prison given that the Applicant is detained in Melbourne.
4. Whilst I do not have direct evidence from the Applicant's daughter, I do accept that the impact on her would be profound and have discussed this specifically in the context of the best interests of children below.
5. The Respondent accepts that the removal of the Applicant from Australia would cause emotional and practical hardship to his immediate family.
6. I accept that the impact of the cancellation on the immediate family of the Applicant, would be profound.
7. Turning to the strength, nature and duration of any other ties that the non-citizen has to the Australian community, I have considered Siale v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship[18] - this consideration directs attention to '...the impact on the non-citizen of the loss of any other ties to the Australian community'.[19] I have considered the impact on the Applicant of the potential loss to him of any other ties to the Australian community.
8. I accept that the Applicant has lived in Australia for almost his entire life. He went to school, enjoyed sports, entered his apprenticeship and worked in his profession here. He has family, friends and his daughter in Australia. His ties to Australia are profound.
9. The Respondent acknowledges the Applicant's length of residence is significant, he has spent the majority of his life in Australia and his formative years were spent here and he has developed longstanding social and familial ties. The Respondent does however submit that the weight to be afforded to this factor should be considered in light of the Applicant's sustained history of criminal offending which began in adolescence and continued to adulthood, positing that the Applicant's long-term residence has not translated into a sustained commitment to lawful conduct or positive community engagement.
10. The Respondent acknowledges that weight should be given to this factor in favour of revocation but argues that the offending history should not outweigh the protection of the Australian community.
11. The Applicant's ties to Australia are clearly apparent. The continuing cancellation of the Applicant's visa, and his removal from Australia, would lead to very significant harm to the Applicant's immediate family. The Applicant has grown up and lived in Australia for almost the entirety of his life and has strong and significant ties to Australia which would meaningfully impact the Applicant were the visa to remain cancelled and he be removed to New Zealand. The Respondent largely concedes this, but I have had regard to the context of the Applicant's offending over a significant period of his life when evaluating this factor and overall.
12. I conclude that the Applicant's ties to Australia is a factor that weighs strongly in favour of revocation of the cancellation of the visa.

1. Paragraph 8.4 requires that the Tribunal determine whether non-revocation is or is not in the best interests of a child affected by the decision. Paragraph 8.4(2) and (3) specify that the child must be under 18 years old when the decision is made, and that if there are two or more such children, that each child should be given individual consideration.
2. Paragraph 8.4(4) specifies factors which must be considered where relevant.

1. The Applicant's daughter is eight years old. I do not have recent direct information from the daughter or her mother, but I have had regard to the 2015 statement of her mother.
2. The Applicant, his mother, brothers and friends all provided consistent information about the importance of his daughter to the Applicant, the caring role he had undertaken before his incarceration, and the contact he had maintained whilst in prison, noting that this had diminished after he was released and placed in immigration detention late last year.
3. The Applicant's mother maintains contact with the Applicant's ex-partner and his daughter.
4. The Applicant submits that it will harm his daughter and cause devastation were he to be removed from Australia. He claims that he wishes to parent 50% with his ex-partner and wants to be there for her as a father in a way that his own father was not.
5. The Respondent accepts that the Applicant maintains a relationship with his daughter through phone calls and letters and that her mother previously supported the Applicant's release so he could be involved in her life, that the Applicant's removal would limit the opportunity for in-person contact and may have an emotional impact on the child, but that the Applicant has only spent a few months with her before he was jailed, and since then has not provided day to day care or practical support and the child is in the full time care of her mother, and the extent of the Applicant's involvement in her life remains limited and largely untested.
6. Having had the benefit of speaking with the Applicant and his family, I am of the view that the Applicant has a genuine wish to be involved in his daughter's life. However, it is also undeniable that the Applicant has had limited opportunities to parent his daughter or develop a relationship with her. It is clear that the Applicant feels very strongly that his daughter would benefit from having him in her life, but the evidence for whether it would be a benefit to his daughter is unfortunately limited. I have therefore had to draw on other information. I note that both in the evidence of the Applicant's mother and his brothers they noted that the Applicant took on a considerable caring role for his younger brothers. I note and accept also the genuine wishes of the Applicant to be a good father to his daughter.
7. Having regard to the factors in 8.4(4) of the direction, I note that this information indicates to me that there is a relationship between the Applicant and his daughter, and between the Applicant's family and his daughter, but that this is attenuated by the lack of day-to-day contact and long period of absence of the Applicant's own making. Having regard to the information, I am prepared to accept that the Applicant wishes to play a positive parental role in the future and, were he able to, he could do so for the balance of his daughter's childhood. I do not consider that his past conduct, nor what I assess is likely to be his future conduct, will have an impact on the child. As noted, it is difficult to assess the effect any separation would have on the child but taking into account general principles of the family,[20] I accept that separation would have some negative impact on the child. I accept the Respondent's submission that the mother currently has full time caring responsibilities for the child. I do not have before me views of the child and note that her age indicates it would be unlikely she would be able to clearly express such views. There is no evidence before me that the child was or is or would be at risk of family violence perpetrated by the Applicant, nor any other abuse or neglect, nor physical or emotional trauma at his hands.

1. The evidence of the Applicant is that he has a number of nieces and nephews who would be affected by his removal. The Applicant did not speak in detail about his nieces or nephews at the hearing but has provided some information.
2. The Respondent accepts that the Applicant may have a close relationship with these children and that his removal may have some emotional impact but that neither child is in his care, their daily needs are met by their parents, and whilst their best interests may weigh in favour of revocation, this should be given limited weight. I tend to agree on what I have heard and have before me.
3. However, the best interests of the Applicant's daughter, when considered particularly in light of the factors in 8.4(4), indicate that her best interests appear clearly to favour revocation. Having considered the best interests of the children affected individually, I consider that this factor weighs strongly in favour of revocation of the cancellation of the visa.

1. Paragraphs 8.5(1) of Direction 110 provides that the Australian community expects non‑citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct and breached this expectation, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they will breach it, the Australian community expects as a norm that the Government will not allow such non-citizens to remain in Australia.
2. Paragraph 8.5(2) further provides that it may be appropriate to cancel the visa of such a person because the nature of the character concerns or offences is such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not continue to hold a visa.
3. This paragraph in particular details that acts of family violence, forced marriage, commission of serious crimes against women, children or other vulnerable members of the community, against government representatives, human trafficking or worker exploitation should be considered particularly seriously.
4. Paragraph 8.5(3) indicates that the expectations of the Australian community apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
5. Paragraph 8.5(4) specifies that this consideration is about the expectations of the Australian community as a whole and, in this respect, decision-makers should proceed on the basis of the Government's views as articulated above, without independently assessing the community's expectations in the particular case.
6. I have considered the principles expressed in paragraph 5.2 of the Direction within which the task of deciding whether to cancel a visa under s 501 should be undertaken.
7. I understand that the expectations of the Australian community are to be determined by reference to Direction 110 itself, and not an independent assessment conducted by the Tribunal, and have had regard to caselaw which supports this approach.[21] I acknowledge that this factor is adverse to any Applicant.[22] I accept that this consideration requires the Tribunal to proceed on the basis that the views of the Australian Government, as set out, are the relevant norm described as the expectations of the Australia community, and not to attempt to infer what the expectations of the Australian community would be in this particular case.[23] To make my own assessment of community expectations, or to give this factor weight in favour of revocation is impermissible under the structure of the Direction.[24]
8. As the Respondent asserts, the question for the Tribunal is therefore what weight to give this consideration. The Respondent submits that this primary consideration weighs heavily against revocation and notes that these expectations apply regardless of whether the Applicant poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community: paragraphs 8.5(3) and 5.2(4) of Direction 110. The Minister submits that the Tribunal should find that the Applicant, through his offending conduct, fails to meet the Australian community's expectation that non-citizens obey Australian laws, and that the Australian community would expect a person who commits such offences should not continue to hold a visa.
9. The Applicant did not directly address this factor in his SFIC or at the hearing. I do note that he has argued the cancellation would be contrary to community expectations of fairness and second chances, but as above, these are not the norms that I am assessing this factor against.
10. Having had regard to the Direction and the caselaw, I agree with the Respondent's submission and find that this factor weighs strongly in favour of non-revocation.

1. Section 9 concerns 'other' considerations. There is a non-exhaustive list of three such considerations set out in the Direction.

1. Paragraph 9.1(1) of the Direction directs a decision-maker to take into account the following:

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

1. I note that paragraphs 9.1(2) and (3) of the Direction address Australia's non-refoulement obligations under international instruments, to the extent of Australia's interpretation of the non-refoulement obligation and the scope of the obligations that Australia is committed to implementing. Paragraph 9.1(3) notes that:

International non-refoulement obligations will generally not be relevant where the person concerned does not raise such obligations for consideration and the circumstances do not suggest a non-refoulement claim.

1. In this case, the Applicant held a Class TY- subclass 444 visa. As an initial point, I note that the Applicant has not raised nor do the circumstances suggest that Australia's non-refoulement obligations would be engaged in this case. On the information before me, there is no actual or implied protection finding in relation to the Applicant. I find these considerations are not relevant in this case.
2. Turning to consider paragraph 9.1(1) of the Direction, I note that the Applicant is currently detained in immigration detention pursuant to s 189 of the Act. If the visa remains cancelled and there are no further legal avenues available, the Applicant will be removed from Australia to New Zealand, his country of citizenship, pursuant to s 198 of the Act.
3. The Respondent accepts that if the visa remains cancelled, the Applicant will be unable to satisfy the Special Return Criteria in cl 5001(c) of Schedule 5 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), essentially barring the Applicant from being able to be granted a visa and travel to Australia. The Respondent submits that this must be taken into account,[25] but that such consequences are best understood as the intended outcomes of the statutory scheme enacted by Parliament,[26] and consequently that this consequence may be given neutral weight.
4. The Applicant has not directly addressed these considerations in his SFIC and at the hearing, and his submissions are considered below in the next consideration.
5. I find the Respondent's submissions on this point persuasive. If the visa remained cancelled, there is no indication that the Applicant would be detained indefinitely or for any significant period, and no impediment to removal. As noted, the Applicant has no protection finding, nor is there any indication that Australia's non-refoulement obligations would be engaged. Whilst the legal consequences include the very likely fact that the Applicant would be barred from being granted most visas and therefore travelling to Australia, I accept that this is best understood as the intended outcome of the scheme, and as such the effect of this on the Applicant is best weighed under the other factors above and below.
6. I therefore give this factor neutral weight.

1. Paragraph 9.2 of the Direction directs a decision-maker to take into account 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:

(i) the non-citizen's age and health; > > (ii) whether there are any substantial language or cultural barriers; and > > (iii) any social, medical and/or economic support available to that non-citizen in that country.

The Respondent notes that the Applicant is a citizen of New Zealand and accepts that the Applicant may face practical, financial and emotional hardship upon return, particularly in the absence of immediate family support. The Respondent goes on however to note that as a New Zealand citizen, the Applicant would have access to the same social, medical and economic support as other citizens, and in the SFIC and at the hearing noted that the Applicant, holding trade qualifications in cabinetmaking and a history of employment, would be likely to be able to gain employment in New Zealand. This leads the Respondent to submit that, whilst accepting the Applicant may suffer substantial emotional hardship due to separation from his family and child in Australia, it is submitted that these impediments are not insurmountable, and that this consideration should weigh in favour of revocation only to a limited extent.

1. The Applicant asserts that he would face considerable difficulties on return, he would be permanently separated from his family including his child, he would lose access to his support network and struggle to obtain stable employment. He has no immediate family or support networks in New Zealand. At the hearing the Applicant expanded on these points, as did his mother who gave evidence that if he were to be removed to New Zealand she may never see him again because she would not be able to afford to travel to New Zealand.
2. I accept the Applicant's evidence, and that of his mother, as indicative of the real difficulties the Applicant would have on being removed to and establishing himself in New Zealand. Whilst it is true that he would have access to the same social, medical and economic support as other citizens, and that he is still a young man able to work and support himself, with no apparent medical issues, it is also the case that he would have no support networks and would lose access to his family and in particular his mother and likely his child as well. Whilst his trade qualifications and prior work would stand him in good stead, the New Zealand work environment may differ from that in Australia and the economic conditions may not be as favourable.
3. Having regard to what I accept of the Applicant and his mother's evidence, I consider that the Applicant will suffer substantial hardship if removed to New Zealand and I give this factor significant weight in favour of revocation.

1. Paragraph 9.3.1 of Direction 110 directs a decision-maker to take into account the following:

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

1. The Applicant claims that his work as a cabinetmaker involved work for childcare centres, schools and nursing homes, his current offers of employment, and that his removal would have an impact on Australian businesses.
2. The Respondent submits that whilst the Applicant is a qualified cabinetmaker and has completed four years of TAFE, and has current offers of employment, there is no evidence to suggest that the Applicant's removal would significantly impact the delivery of a major project or provision of an important service to Australia and that this consideration should be afforded neutral weight.
3. Whilst acknowledging the Applicant's skills and past work and offers of employment, I tend to agree with the Respondents submissions in this regard and give this consideration neutral weight.

1. The Applicant's visa was cancelled mandatorily. There is no argument that the Applicant does not pass the character test. Under s 501CA(4) of the Act, the cancellation may be revoked where there is another reason.
2. The consideration of the factors in Direction 110 is not a mathematical exercise, but rather is evaluative and it is for the Tribunal in this case to determine the relative weight to be given to each factor.[27] The nature of an evaluative exercise permits consideration of the context of facts which are relevant to the matters in paragraphs 8 and 9 of Direction 110. While primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations, these other considerations are not necessarily 'secondary considerations', and particular circumstances of a case may justify greater weight being given to one or more of the other considerations than one or more of the primary considerations.[28]
3. I have found above that the offending was very serious but given I have considered on the information before me that the risk of the Applicant reoffending is low, the considerations under the protection of the Australian community weighed only moderately in favour of non-revocation. However, the expectations of the Australian community weighed strongly in favour of non-revocation.
4. I have found above that the Applicant's ties to Australia are a factor that weighs strongly in favour of revocation. The evidence on this factor was overwhelmingly in favour of the Applicant. I have found that the best interests of the Applicant's child, and to a lesser extent his nieces and nephews, weighs strongly in favour of revocation. So too does the impediments if the Applicant is removed. Other factors I found to be neutral. No other considerations outside those required to be considered under the Direction have been identified nor are apparent on the material.
5. I have considered the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court concerning the operation of Direction No. 90 in CRNL v Minister for Immigration Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs.[29] The Court found that the Tribunal must weigh and balance the various primary and other relevant considerations outlined in the Direction (in this case, Direction 110) against each other, but to treat the Direction as mandating some sort of calculation of the net weight to be given to the considerations on each side is to lose sight of the ultimately evaluative nature of the statutory task.
6. Having regard to this, I have weighed the primary and other considerations. Whilst the identified primary considerations weigh in favour of non-revocation, they do not outweigh, I find, the other primary and other considerations which I find establish clearly that the cancellation of the visa should not be revoked.

1. The decision of the Respondent's delegate dated 23 June 2025 not to revoke, under section 501CA(4) of the Act, the cancellation of the Applicant's Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa is set aside and substituted with a decision that the cancellation of the Applicant's visa be revoked under section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act.

[1]Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth), s 111; Administrative Review Tribunal (Migration, Protection and Character) Practice Direction 2024, 5.12.

[2] G-Documents filed on 16 July 2025: G3, p 20.

[3] G-Documents filed on 16 July 2025: G17, pp 177-178.

[5] G-Documents filed on 16 July 2025, G11, G12

[10] G-Documents filed on 16 July 2025, G7, pp. 46 - 49.

[14] Applicant's Statement of Facts Issues and Contentions, A1.

[15] Respondent's Statement of Facts Issues and Contentions, R1.

[16] Pavey and Minister for Home Affairs [2019] AATA 4198 at [44]

[17] QJYD v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] AATA 1 at [51] - [54].

[18] Siale v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FCA 608.

[19] Siale v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FCA 608, [52].

[20] See Art 7 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

[21] Prasad v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 791, at [17]; FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185, [73]-[75] (Charlesworth J), [103]-[104] (Steward J).

[22] YNQY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1466 at [76].

[23] Ismail v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 2, DBWG v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCAFC 3.

[24] Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs v HSRN [2023] FCAFC 68 at [48].

[25] Rano v Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for Cyber Security [2024] FCA 1003 per Feutrill J at [12]-[14].

[26] Stoneley v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 143 at [35]-[36]

[27] Nguyen v Minister for Home Affairs 920190 [2019] FCAFC 128; 270 FCR 555, [33].

[28] Suleiman v Minister for Immigration [2018] FCA 594, [23].

[29] [2023] FCAFC 138.