1. It is not in dispute that on 5 February 2025, the applicant was convicted in the Local Court of New South Wales of Intentionally do sexual act with child and that he was serving a sentence of imprisonment at the time of the cancellation. It is conceded that he does not pass the character test.[2]
2. The only remaining issue for the Tribunal is whether there is another reason to revoke the cancellation decision. In considering this issue, the Tribunal is bound by s 499(2A) to comply with Direction No 110 - Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (the Direction).
3. For the following reasons, I have decided to set aside the decision under review and substitute a decision not to cancel the applicant's visa.

1. Under s 499(1) of the Act, the Minister may give written directions to a person or body having functions or power under the Act, and a person or body must comply with any direction given by the Minster (s 499(2A)).
2. The Minister has issued Direction 110, Visa refusal and cancellation under s 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA ('the Direction'). It is expressed to apply to the Administrative Review Tribunal in making a decision under s 501 or s 501CA of the Act, and the Tribunal must comply with the Direction.

1. Clause 5.2 of the Direction provides principles to provide a framework to approach decision making. These are:

(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 measureable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.[3]

1. The Direction also sets out matters to be considered in refusing or not revoking the cancellation of a visa. It requires certain primary and other considerations to be considered in making a decision, and states that in taking these into account 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 ... (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.[4]

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR REVOCATION OF THE CANCELLATION OF HIS VISA

1. The Direction contains five primary considerations, which 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;

(5) expectations of the Australian community.[5]

1. I have considered each one in turn, keeping in mind the principles in cl 5.2 of the Direction.

1. The Direction requires decision-makers to keep in mind that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government and that the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens.[6]
2. The Tribunal is directed to have particular regard to the principle that entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, will respect important institutions and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.[7]
3. 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. The applicant's criminal offending is set out in his National Criminal History Check run 29 May 2025:
   • 5 February 2025: _Intentionally do sexual act with child >= 10yrs & (1) In considering the need to protect the Australian community (including individuals, groups or institutions) from harm, decision-makers should 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.

(2) In assessing the risk that may be posed by the non-citizen to the Australian community, decision-makers must 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

1. evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since their most recent offence (noting that decisions should not be delayed in order for rehabilitative courses to be undertaken) ...

1. This requires an assessment of the nature of the harm should the applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct.[14] It also requires an assessment of the likelihood of the applicant engaging in such conduct.[15] There is no statutory constraint on the way that risk is assessed by the decision-maker other than that there must be a rational and probative basis for the assessment.[16]

1. In order to determine the risk to the Australian community should the applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct, the Tribunal must consider the nature of the harm to individuals, or the Australian community, should the applicant reoffend.[17]
2. The applicant has been convicted of one serious offence and a number of less serious offences. The Tribunal accepts that if he were to reoffend in a similar manner to his most serious offence, there is a significant risk of harm to members of the Australian community.

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

1. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that he poses a low risk of reoffending for reasons of his genuine remorse, his strong and supportive family network in Australia and his potential for long-term rehabilitation through appropriate intervention and supervision and the proactive steps his mother has taken to address his mental health, intellectual disability and substance abuse issues since obtaining a guardianship order in June 2025.[18]
2. The respondent points to the lack of evidence as to any treatment, rehabilitation courses or psychological support engaged in by the applicant to address his substance use or mental health or the applicant's compliance with prescribed medication. The respondent submits that the Tribunal should find that the applicant remains a medium risk of reoffending as set out in the sentencing assessment report of 31 January 2025, having regard to the applicant's behaviour in detention (referring to the incident described at paragraph 31 above) and the seriousness of the potential harm that would be caused if the same or similar offences were to be repeated.[19]
3. The sentencing remarks reflect that the magistrate had available two risk reports relevant to the assessment of risk. The first was a sentence assessment report dated 31 January 2025 written by a community corrections officer at the Long Bay Parole Unit which assessed the applicant as a medium risk of reoffending. The second was a psychological risk report dated 29 January 2025 from Long Bay Hospital Psychological Services which assessed the applicant as above average in the risk range. The sentencing judge noted the second report was done without interaction from the applicant and based on file information only and that it did not appear that the authors had access to the detailed medical history considered in the sentence assessment report. She stated that the risk assessment in that report appeared to be based on a mathematical calculation and didn't seem to have had regard to his proper subjective factors like his intellectual disability and that she didn't find that report useful in any way.[20]
4. The sentencing judge had regard to the support the applicant had from his parents and family, the fact that his mother had made it clear that he needs to address his substance use problems and his mental health and that she would not tolerate substance abuse in her home. She accepted the applicant had a substance use problem with methamphetamine or ice, which he said he had not been using on remand and that he hoped to remain abstinent in the community. She accepted his genuine remorse and noted the established law that someone with a moderate disability is less morally culpable for their offending.[21]
5. I have had regard to the Sentencing Assessment Report dated 31 January 2025. That report noted that if the court were to make a supervision order, it would implement the following supervision plan:
   • Referral to NSW Psychology service for a Sex Offender Supervision Assessment (SOSA) which will determine his dynamic risk factors and case management recommendations.
   • Referral to Forensic Psychology Services (FPS) to address sex offending if found suitable.
   • Referral to an external Alcohol and Drug Service for assessment of suitability for an intensive program for drug and alcohol use, relapse prevention and counselling.
   • Random drug wipes to monitor and promote abstinence.
   • Referral to General Practitioner (GP) for a mental health care plan (MHCP) and a subsequent referral to a community-based psychologist to ensure his mental health is managed.
   • Practice Guide for Intervention modules to incorporate Managing Environment and Cravings.[22]
6. There is no dispute that the applicant has not to date engaged in any treatment, rehabilitation courses or psychological support as suggested by the Sentencing Assessment Report. As noted above, the applicant was held on remand from the time of his arrest until the date of his sentencing and was granted parole one month later by order of the court, when he was immediately taken into immigration detention.
7. The applicant's guardian and mother Mrs [AB] gave evidence that the applicant had with her encouragement tried to access a drug rehabilitation course while in detention but she was told by the detention centre that he was not eligible for that course because they didn't consider he was at that time dependent on drugs. The respondent acknowledged that the applicant faced significant barriers to access rehabilitation and treatment services while in detention, although it was submitted that he could have participated in privately arranged courses or counselling sessions.
8. Mrs [AB] gave evidence that she has made contact with Odyssey House seeking rehabilitation services for the applicant if he were to be released from immigration detention and her evidence in that respect is corroborated by email correspondence between Mrs [AB] and that service.[23] Mrs [AB] gave evidence that she and her husband will pay for any services her son requires while waiting publicly funded rehabilitation services and that they are both working full-time and have the financial capacity to do so. Mr [AB] also gave evidence of his commitment to support his wife and son in every way he could, including financially and also by taking his son anywhere he needed to go.
9. I consider Mrs [AB] and Mr [AB] to be credible witnesses, whose support and concern for their son was apparent during their evidence. I accept Mr [AB]'s evidence that when the applicant first started using drugs and staying away from home for days or weeks at a time in around 2019, he sought the assistance of the police but was advised that the applicant was an adult who could make his own decisions. I accept that as the applicant's drug use and offending escalated, his parents tried to counsel him and stop him seeing friends they considered were encouraging him to consume drugs.
10. The Tribunal also heard evidence from the applicant's general practitioner, Dr [AM], who stated that a rehabilitation program for the applicant would involve an assessment, counselling, medications and support. He acknowledged that it may take a few weeks or a few months to get that assessment and that such a program would usually take between three and 12 months, depending on the patient's response. He gave evidence that the applicant may be eligible for the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), but if that were not the case there were alternative private programs that could be accessed to provide similar support.
11. I accept that the applicant has not undertaken any rehabilitation, assessments or treatment while on remand, prison or immigration detention. I acknowledge the respondent's submission to the effect that the support of the applicant's family did not serve to prevent his offending in the past.
12. However I consider that there are now several protective factors that were not present at the time of the applicant's offending which cause me not to accept the respondent's contention that the applicant has limited rehabilitation prospects:
    • Firstly, the guardianship order granted to Mrs [AB] in June 2025. This order gives her the power to decide what healthcare the applicant may receive, to make substitute decisions about proposed medical treatment, to make decisions about legal services and to advocate generally for her son;[24]
    • Secondly, the ongoing involvement of Dr [AM] who has been the applicant's treating doctor since 2018. Dr [AM] has articulated a realistic plan for the applicant's rehabilitation and ongoing support through NDIS or a similar private provider;
    • Thirdly, the evidence of the applicant's parents at hearing demonstrated a keen awareness of the precariousness of the applicant's position. I am satisfied that if the applicant's visa cancellation is revoked and he is released from immigration detention his parents will do all things in their power to seek out appropriate rehabilitation and treatment services and apply for NDIS, to arrange rehabilitation, treatment and other support services for their son. Letters of support from the applicant's adult daughter and cousin demonstrate broad family support for and commitment to the applicant's treatment and rehabilitation;
    • Fourthly, I accept the applicant is genuinely remorseful for his past offending and his experiences in prison and detention have brought home to him the seriousness of his actions and the consequences for his victim, his family and himself (noting he has already been detained in immigration detention for more than twice as long as he was imprisoned);
    • Fifthly, the conditions of the child protection registration order made in respect of the applicant on 5 March 2025. Those conditions are extensive and require the applicant to regularly report to police and provide them with certain information including any address where he lives for at least 14 days, details of any children who reside in the same household or with whom he otherwise has specified kinds of contact as well as the nature of any work he undertakes including details of his employer and their location.[25] While the applicant's understanding of that order is general at best, it is apparent that his parents have a clear understanding of the seriousness of the applicant's position should he breach the conditions of that order.
13. Notwithstanding those protective factors, I accept that the challenges for the applicant and his family in managing his rehabilitation, his intellectual disability and the conditions of the child protection registration order are significant. For these reasons I assess the applicant to be at low to medium risk of reoffending.

Conclusion on the protection of the Australian community

1. The applicant concedes this factor weighs against revocation. Having regard to the nature and seriousness of the applicant's offending and conduct, and to the risk to the Australian community should the applicant commit further offences or other serious conduct, I weigh this primary consideration moderately against the revocation of the cancellation of the visa.

1. Clause 8.2 of the Direction provides that decision-makers, such as the Tribunal, must have regard to family violence perpetrated by the non-citizen when deciding whether to revoke a visa cancellation decision.
2. The Direction states 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 are proportionate to the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the non-citizen.[26]
3. The parties agree there is no evidence that the applicant has committed any family violence and this factor is not relevant to my decision.

The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia

1. This consideration requires the Tribunal to have regard to the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia. Clause 8.3 of the Direction provides that:

(1) Decision-makers must consider any impact of the decision on the non-citizen's immediate family members in Australia, where those family members are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely.

(2) Where consideration is being given to whether to cancel a non-citizen's visa or whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of their visa, the decision-maker must also consider the strength, nature and duration of any other ties that the non-citizen has to the Australian community. In doing so, decision-makers must have regard to:

a) how long the non-citizen has resided in Australia, including whether the non-citizen arrived as a young child, noting that:

1. less weight should be given where the non-citizen began offending soon after arriving in Australia; and

1. more weight should be given to time the non-citizen has spent contributing positively to the Australian community

b) the strength, duration and nature of any family or social links with Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia.

1. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates the applicant's criminal offending commenced after the applicant started using drugs in about 2019 and the most serious (and recent) offending took place in 2024. The applicant has now been resident in Australia for nine and a half years, having arrived in Australia with his parents and sister in July 2016.

1. The applicant's immediate family members are his parents and adult sister, all of whom have obtained Australian citizenship since their arrival. The applicant's family attribute the applicant's own repeated failure to pass the Australian citizenship test to his moderate intellectual disability and were unaware that he could have applied for an exemption on the grounds of his medical conditions and disability.
2. Each member of the applicant's family is in full time employment and Mrs [AB] spoke of the family's migration to Australia for the opportunities it offered them and their belief that their life is here now. Both of his parents spoke of their fears that their son would be homeless if forced to return to the Philippines as they do not believe their extended family members would be able to provide him with the level of support he requires. Having considered the oral evidence and written evidence of the applicant's parents and sister, the Tribunal accepts that any decision not to revoke the applicant's visa cancellation would have a serious negative impact upon them.

1. Mrs [AB] gave evidence that two of her siblings and their families also reside in Australia, and the applicant's adult cousin also lives with the applicant's family. The applicant has worked for periods in the past, but was unemployed at the time of his offending. At hearing he gave evidence that he was not in touch with any of his friends outside the detention centre.
2. I am satisfied that the applicant's relationship with his parents and sister and the presence of other extended family members including his cousin indicate that he has strong family ties in this country. I find that he has lesser ties to members of the Australian community.
3. The respondent accepts that the applicant has significant ties to Australia and that this consideration weighs in favour of revocation. I weigh the strength, nature and duration of the applicant's ties to Australia strongly in favour of revoking of the decision to cancel his visa.

Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision

1. Clause 8.4 of the Direction requires the Tribunal to consider the best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision. Under cl 8.4, the Tribunal must make a determination whether cancellation or refusal under s 501 of the Act, is or is not, in the best interests of children who are under 18 at the time the decision is expected to be made. Where there are two or more relevant children, the best interests of each child should be given individual consideration to the extent that their interests might differ.
2. It is agreed that there are no minor children in Australia affected by the decision and this factor is not relevant to my decision.

1. The fifth primary consideration requires the Tribunal to weigh the expectations of the Australian community. Clause 8.5(1) of the Direction provides that the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. The Direction goes on to state that where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they may do so, the Australian community, as a norm, expects the government to not allow them to enter or remain in Australia.
2. Clause 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. This includes an expectation that a visa should be cancelled if they raise serious character concerns because of acts of family violence.[27]
3. Clause 8.5(3) of the Direction further confirms that the stated expectations apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community. Clause 8.5(4) of the Direction requires the Tribunal to proceed on the basis of the government's views as to the expectations of the Australian community as expressed in paragraph 8.5.
4. The Federal Court of Australia has held that the assessment of community circumstances is not a matter of evidence and does not turn on the personal circumstances of the individual non-citizen. Rather the Court held that a decision-maker can take into account the personal circumstances of an individual in so far as they are relevant to another primary consideration or one of the other considerations and adjust the relative weight to be given to each of the considerations accordingly.[28]
5. It follows that this consideration will, in all cases, weigh against revocation of a cancellation decision if that expectation has been breached or if there is an unacceptable risk that it may be breached in the future, and I have considered the applicant's personal circumstances elsewhere in these reasons against the other considerations to which they are relevant.
6. The Tribunal is guided by the principles in cl 5.2 of the Direction which direct that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority. While I have found that the applicant is at low to medium risk of reoffending, the seriousness of his offending and the fact that it involved a sexual offence against a child, must be considered regardless of the level of risk he poses to the Australian community.
7. The applicant concedes that this factor weighs against revocation. I weigh this consideration moderately against revocation of the visa cancellation.

(1) In making a decision under section 501(1), 501(2) or 501CA(4), the considerations below must also be taken into account, where relevant, in accordance with the following provisions. These considerations include (but are not limited to):

Legal consequences of decision under section 501 or 501CA

1. The Tribunal is required to consider the legal consequences of a decision on a non-citizen, including having regard to Australia's non-refoulement obligations in respect of unlawful non-citizens.[29] There is no suggestion in this case that Australia has a non-refoulement obligation to the applicant.
2. If the mandatory visa cancellation is revoked, the legal consequence is that the applicant will remain on the Class EN (Subclass 186) Employer Nomination Scheme visa and will be permitted to live in the community with his family under the care of his mother and guardian.
3. There are a range of legal consequences of a decision not to revoke the cancellation of the applicant's visa:

(a) He will continue to be detained under s 189 of the Act and he will be liable for removal from Australia as soon as practicable under s 198 of the Act. I accept the respondent's contention that there are no obvious barriers to his removal; > > (b) He will face a prohibition on applying for most other types of visa while he remains in the migration zone;[30] > > (c) He faces exclusion from Australia pursuant to s 503, and he may be subject to special return criteria.[31]

4. The respondent accepts that cancellation of the applicant's visa means that he is subject to removal and will remain in detention until then and be precluded from applying for certain visas. It is contended that this consideration should be given neutral weight, because these are the intended legal consequences for a person that has the status of an unlawful non-citizen.[32]
5. I acknowledge that the applicant's removal from Australia and the visa limitations which result from a decision to refuse the visa are all intended consequences of the operation of s 501. However the Federal Court has held that it is insufficient to reason that because a legal consequence is an intended consequence, it is a factor that weighs neither for nor against revocation, rather the Tribunal is obliged to consider the legal consequence of indefinite exclusion having regard to the particular circumstances of the applicant, and factor that into its weighing exercise.[33] It is the 'practical realities' in 'human terms' of the legal consequences that are important, rather than the legal consequences in the abstract.[34]
6. In this case the effect of the intended legal consequences on the applicant are significant, because they involve not only his detention and removal to the Philippines but his separation from his parents and sister due to his permanent exclusion from Australia where they reside and where he has lived for almost ten years. These effects are exacerbated by his intellectual disability and his very significant reliance on his mother and guardian. NCAT's written reasons for making the guardianship order record that the applicant's understanding of his visa status is rudimentary and it is evident he relies heavily on his mother for decision-making.[35]
7. I consider that the legal consequences of a decision not to revoke the visa cancellation will have a significant negative impact on the applicant. For the reasons set out earlier, I have also accepted such a decision will have a significant negative impact on the applicant's parents and sister.
8. I weigh this consideration strongly in favour of revocation of the visa cancellation.

1. Clause 9.2 of the Direction provides that taking into account the matters identified in sub-clauses 9.2(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Direction, the Tribunal must consider the extent to which the Applicant would face an impediment or impediments in establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country. The matters identified under sub-clauses 9.2(1)(a), (b) and (c) are:
   • the applicant's age and health;
   • whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers; and
   • any social, medical and/or economic support available to the Applicant in that country.
2. In this case the applicant is a 29-year-old male who spent his childhood years in the Philippines and will not experience any significant language or cultural barriers.
3. I have considered Ms A's evidence as to the medical and health facilities available to the applicant in the Philippines and I accept that his family travelled approximately two hours into Manila for most of the applicant's medical assessments and treatment prior to their migration to Australia. While I accept that his parents consider he will have access to better health services in Australia, I consider that he will have the same access to health care as other citizens of the Philippines_._
4. The respondent accepts that the applicant has a diagnosis of moderate intellectual disability and focal epilepsy and that he requires ongoing support, familial support and treatment. The respondent also accepts that the applicant will face significant hardship due to the separation from his family, his disability and other associated medical conditions, his reliance on support from family and other health providers and substance abuse issues.[36]
5. I consider that the applicant's reliance on his family, and particularly his mother Mrs [AB], for support, guidance and decision-making extends far beyond the need for medical treatment and will likely be required across his lifetime. I note that NCAT's written reasons for making the guardianship order record that the applicant appeared to lack any real understanding of his circumstances or his visa status and that he was clearly vulnerable and isolated in detention. The applicant told NCAT that he needed help to make decisions and he trusts his mother to do so and that Tribunal was satisfied that he had a disability that restricted his major life activities to an extent that he needs supervision or social rehabilitation.[37]
6. The respondent accepts that this consideration weighs in favour of the applicant and I weigh this consideration strongly in favour of the revocation of the cancellation of the visa.

(1) 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. It is agreed by the parties that the cancellation of the applicant's visa would not impact on the interests of Australian businesses and I weigh this consideration as neutral.

1. The applicant does not pass the character test under s 501 of the Act, and I must consider whether there is another reason why the decision to cancel his visa should be revoked, having regard to the primary and other considerations in the Direction.
2. Clause 7 of the Direction sets out the ways in which the relevant considerations are to be taken into account and weighed. The Full Court of the Federal Court has stated that '[t]he real burden of the task to be undertaken by a decision-maker who must comply with the Direction [being the precursor to Direction 110] is to bring together the considerations as part of a single evaluation of their relative significance thereby weighing them all together'.[38]
3. Greater weight must generally be given to the protection of the Australian community than other primary considerations. Greater weight will also generally be given to primary considerations. In examining what this requires, the Full Court in CRNL states that this means greater weight will be given unless there is some reason why that general approach should not be adopted.[39]
4. In bringing together the considerations in the manner required by CRNL, I give the primary consideration of the protection of the community greater weight than other primary considerations. I have assessed the applicant as being a low to moderate risk to the Australian community but that risk is real and I have given this factor moderate weight against revocation of the visa cancellation. Similarly I have found that the Australian community expects that the cancellation of the applicant's visa is not revoked and I have weighed this factor moderately against revocation of the visa cancellation.
5. I have found that the strength, nature and duration of the applicant's ties to Australia weigh strongly in favour of revocation of the visa cancellation, as do the legal consequences of the decision and the extent of impediments if removed. I have found the considerations relating to family violence and the best interests of minor children are not relevant in this case I have assessed the impact on Australian business interests to be neutral.
6. Although I have given the consideration of the protection of the Australian community greater weight than the other primary considerations, I conclude that the combined weight of the considerations that weigh in favour of revocation of the visa cancellation outweigh those that favour cancellation of the applicant's visa. I consider that the primary considerations of the strength, nature and duration of the applicant's ties to Australia, together with the considerations of the legal consequences of the decision and the extent of impediments if removed, cumulatively weigh in favour of revocation of the visa cancellation.

1. The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution decides that there is another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa.

I certify that the preceding 92 (ninety-two) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member A. Murphy

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

[1] NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal Order and Reasons for Decision dated 6 June 2025, Hearing Book 273.

[2] Applicant's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions [13]; Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions [12].

[3] Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Cth), Direction no. 110 - Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation under section 501CA (dated 7 June 2024) cl 5.2 (the Direction).

[9] Sentencing remarks of the Magistrate's Court of NSW 5 February 2025, Hearing Book 52.

[10] Sentencing remarks of the Magistrate's Court of NSW 5 February 2025, Hearing Book 59.

[13] See also the Direction, cl 8.1(2)(b).

[16] BSJ16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1181, [68] per Moshinsky J; Hambledon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 7, [41] per Kenny J.

[18] Applicant's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions [29].

[19] Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions [32]-[35].

[20] Sentencing remarks of the Magistrate's Court of NSW 5 February 2025, Hearing Book 58-9.

[22] Sentencing Assessment Report dated 31 January 2025, Hearing Book 201.

[24] NSW Civil and Administrative Guardianship Order dated 6 June 2025, Hearing Book 107.

[28] RCLN v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 876, [56].

[31] Ibid s 503, special return criteria (SRC) 5001.

[32] Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions [47].

[33] Doan and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] ARTA 52, [28]-[32].

[34] NBMZ v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCAFC 38, [3], [9]-[10].

[35] NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Guardianship Division 6 June 2025, Hearing Book 274.

[36] Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions [50]-[52].

[37] NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Guardianship Division 6 June 2025, Hearing Book 274.

[38] CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 138, [23].