RESPONDENTS STATEMENT OF FACTS ISSUES AND CONTENTIONS

1. The Tribunal received a copy of the Respondent's statement of facts, issues and contentions dated 21 November 2025, which has duly been considered.
2. The submission notes that the issue for determination before the Tribunal is whether the decision to refuse to grant the Applicant a Bridging E visa should be affirmed having regard to the relevant considerations in Direction 110.
3. The submission notes that having regard to the protection of the Australian community, that the Applicant had engaged in serious criminal offending, namely, the production of a commercial quantity of an illicit drug, methylamphetamine. The fact that the Applicant was sentenced to a period of imprisonment of eight years was indicative of the seriousness of the offending behaviour. Further that the sentencing comments in the District Court of New South Wales by Judge Robinson indicate that the Applicant's role in the criminal offending was that of a person in charge of the Australian component of what appeared to be an international criminal enterprise.
4. The submission also notes that the Applicant had breached a domestic violence order which was indicative of contempt for lawful authority.
5. The Minister's position is that the Applicant's criminal conduct should be regarded as a very serious for the purposes of primary consideration 1.
6. The submission notes that the nature of harm to individuals or the Australian community should the Applicant engage in further offending was substantial, given the nature of his offending history with respect to the production of illegal drugs, noting that they cause serious physical and psychological damage.
7. The Respondent noted having regard to the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in further criminal serious conduct, that the Applicant has submitted that he has taken active steps to rehabilitate himself since his imprisonment. It references the sentencing judge, Judge Robinson in the District Court of New South Wales, who opined that the Applicant had reasonable prospects of rehabilitation. The Respondent acknowledges that the Applicant had maintained employment whilst in prison and had employment arranged if he was released into the community in the automotive and construction sector. The Respondent also acknowledged that the Applicant had provided a number of positive character references from family, friends and employers in the Australian community. The Respondent also acknowledged that the Applicant had been assessed as a low risk of reoffending.
8. However, overall, the Respondent submitted that with regard to primary consideration 1, that the very serious nature of the Applicant's criminal offending, along with the inherent risk to the Australian community if he was to reoffend weighed heavily against the Applicant and overall weighed heavily in favour of affirming the reviewable decision.
9. Having regard to family violence committed by the Applicant, the submission notes that the Applicant was the subject of an apprehended violence order protecting his wife. That the Applicant was convicted of contravening this order on 23 September 2022. The submission notes that the Applicant's wife at the time of the offending behaviour informed police that the Applicant had assaulted her, however, due to conflicting witness accounts the police were unable to determine who was assaulted. However, the police determined that it was necessary to obtain an apprehended violence order to protect the Applicant's wife. The Respondent contends that the Applicant did engage in family violence against his wife and that this consideration should weigh in favour of the Tribunal affirming the decision under review.
10. Having regard to the strength nature and duration of ties to Australia, the Respondent notes that the Applicant claims that his wife and stepdaughter would be adversely affected by a decision not to revoke the refusal decision. Further, the Respondent noted that the Applicant's wife suffered with a number of mental health conditions and struggled to manage on her own. In addition to this the Applicant's stepdaughter has also struggled as a consequence of his absence and has lost 7 kilograms since the Applicant was detained. The Respondent notes that the Applicant asserts that he has also provided support to his wife's mother and her partner both Australian citizens who have significant disabilities. However, the Minister notes that limited weight should be placed on these ties in the absence of character references from mother-in-law and stepfather-in-law.
11. The Respondent acknowledges that the Applicant had worked in the construction and automotive industry prior to his imprisonment. Further that the Applicant has been involved in his local church community in Auburn. The Respondent overall acknowledged that this primary consideration weighed in the Applicant's favour but was outweighed by primary considerations 1,2, and 5.
12. Having regard to best interests of minor children the Respondent accepts that the Applicant's stepdaughter A would be emotionally impacted if the Applicant was returned to Iran and accepts that this primary consideration weighs in the Applicant's favour, however, is outweighed by other primary considerations namely 1,2, and 5.
13. The Respondent submits that the Applicant engaged in conduct that raises serious character concerns and that overall, this consideration should be given heavy weight against the Applicant.
14. Having regard to the legal consequences of the decision the Respondent notes that the Applicant made an application for a Safe Haven Enterprise visa on 26 May 2017, which was refused. The Applicant sought review with the Immigration Assessment Authority who on 22 November 2019, affirmed the Departmental decision. The Respondent noted that the Applicant has raised Australia's non-refoulement obligations as an 'other' reason as to why the cancellation should be revoked. The submission notes that the Applicant has pursued judicial review of the decision of the Immigration Assessment Authority that is yet to be determined. Overall, the Respondent contends that the Tribunal should not afford any weight to this consideration.
15. Having regard to the extent of impediments if removed the Respondent acknowledges the emotional, practical and financial difficulties that would be experienced by the Applicant if he was removed from Australia, however, contends that these impediments would not prevent the Applicant from re-establishing himself in Iran and should accordingly be given limited weight.
16. Having regard to the impact on Australian business the Respondent contends that there is no evidence before the Tribunal about the Applicant's employment links and the Applicant's contention that if he was not returned to the Australian community, would have a significant impact or compromise the delivery of a major project or an important service in Australia and that this consideration should be afforded neutral weight.
17. Overall, the Respondent contends that primary considerations 3,4, and other considerations weigh in favour of the Applicant but are outweighed by primary considerations 1, 2 and 5.

1. The Tribunal conducted an in person hearing in Sydney on 9 and 10 December 2025. The Applicant attended along with his legal representative Mr Michael Arch. The Applicant and the Tribunal were assisted by an accredited Persian interpreter. The Applicant confirmed that he had no problem understanding the interpreter. The Minister was represented by Ms Emma Letcher-Boldt from Clayton Utz.
2. At the outset of the hearing the Tribunal went into considerable detail about the process of merits review, the respective issues in the review, the prospective outcomes of the review. The Tribunal also outlined how the hearing would be conducted.
3. The Tribunal noted its receipt of the Applicant's tender bundle, the Respondents tender bundle, the G documents, the Applicant and the Respondent's statement of facts, issues and contentions, the Applicant's submissions in reply, and the hearing bundle and confirmed its consideration of these documents.
4. A witness schedule agreed to by the parties indicated that the Respondent wanted to only cross-examine 2 witnesses.
5. Just prior to the commencement of the hearing the Tribunal was advised by Registry staff that the Applicant wanted to call 8 witnesses, 2 of whom were overseas, with an assurance that their testimony would be brief.
6. Because of the time differential with two witnesses appearing from Canada, a decision was made to take evidence from the first overseas witness Mr Amin before opening submissions had been made.
7. The witness was taken through his statement and indeed beyond its contents by Mr Arch and was vigorously cross-examined by Ms Letcher-Bolt for the Minister.
8. The examination of the witness by Mr Arch and the associated cross-examination was protracted.
9. The witness gave an account in his oral evidence that was markedly different to the evidence contained in his undated statement. The Tribunal noted after the examination and cross-examination of the witness that his evidence was both inconsistent and unreliable. It was established that the witness aged 24, had not had any physical interaction with the Applicant since he was 11 or 12 and that he had only learnt of the Applicant's offending just days before the hearing, when the sentencing comments of Judge Robinson were forwarded to him in Canada. After discussion it was conceded by Mr Arch that the witnesses' testimony was both inconsistent and unreliable.
10. The parties were reminded of the timetabling directions of November 2025, where it was directed that witnesses needed to provide a comprehensive statement and that a witness would not be called unless the Respondent or Tribunal wished to examine them. Further that the Tribunal had allocated two days for the review hearing. The Tribunal was required to conduct the proceedings in a way that was fair, lawful, efficient and quick and that the review was an expedited one, where the decision was due to be made by 15 December 2025.
11. The parties had a discussion about the necessity to call all 8 witnesses given that the witnesses had provided statements, and that the Tribunal had only been advised that two witnesses were required by the Respondent for cross-examination.
12. Upon resumption, the parties agreed that there was no need to call any witnesses beyond the two the Tribunal had been advised would need to be available for cross-examination by the Respondent.
13. Both the Applicant's representative and the Minister's representative elected to make an opening statement outlining their respective positions.
14. In summary the Applicant's representatives opening submission conceded that the Applicant had committed a very serious criminal offence with respect to the manufacture of a commercial quantity of methylamphetamines. The seriousness of the offending was reflected in the imposition of a custodial sentence of eight years with a non-parole period of five years. It was conceded that the Applicant's offending meant that he was not able to pass the character test.
15. It was noted that the respective issue before the Tribunal was whether having regard to Ministerial Direction 110 that there was another reason or reasons that the refusal of the Applicant's Bridging E visa could be set aside.
16. The Applicant's representative noted that the judicial review proceedings initiated by the Applicant with respect to the decision of the Immigration Assessment Authority could take an extended period to be finalised, meaning that the Applicant if not released into the community, could spend an extended period of time in immigration detention.
17. The Applicant's representative noted that primary consideration 1 of the Direction namely protection of the Australian community should be afforded appropriate weight against the Applicant however, submitted that there were a number of strong countervailing considerations. Further, that with respect to the Applicant's breach of an apprehended violence order that the Tribunal needed to have regard to the underlying facts with respect to the breach.
18. It was submitted that the strength nature and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia weighed strongly in favour of setting aside the refusal decision of the delegate. Further, that the best interests of the minor child should be given significant weight in favour of setting aside the refusal decision of the delegate.
19. The Applicant's representative noted that there were a number of key pieces of evidence addressing risk. Judge Robinson in the District Court of New South Wales determined in her sentencing comments based on the evidence available to her that there was a low likelihood of the Applicant reoffending and that he had good prospects for rehabilitation. Further the Applicant had been assessed by a Community Corrections Officer as being at a low risk of reoffending. It was submitted that primary consideration 1, protection of the Australian community, should be given due weight by the Tribunal however it was a consideration that was able to be outweighed by other primary considerations along with the 'other' considerations in Direction 110.
20. It was submitted that primary considerations 1 and 5 weighed against the Applicant however, having regard to the other considerations in the Direction that considerations 3, 4 along with 'other' considerations were so powerful and compelling that they outweighed primary considerations 1 and 5.
21. The Minister's representative noted that primary consideration 1 weighed heavily against the Applicant. It was the Minister's position that primary consideration 2, namely family violence committed by the non-citizen, was a consideration engaged in this case. It was conceded that the Tribunal can have regard to the circumstances of the family violence offending however, was not able to go behind the conviction for a breach of an apprehended violence order. The Minister's representative referred to the relevant family violence considerations outlined in 8.2 of the Direction.
22. The Minister's representative noted that primary consideration 3, namely the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia, weighed in the Applicant's favour. The Minister's representative further conceded that primary consideration 4, the best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision, also weighed in favour of the Applicant. However, it was noted that the evidence with respect to the Applicant's stepdaughter indicated that the Applicant was not her primary caregiver.
23. The Minister's representative noted that primary consideration 5, expectations of the Australian community, weighed against setting aside the refusal of the Applicant's Bridging E visa.
24. The Minister's representative having regard to 'other considerations' noted that with respect to the legal consequences of the decision, that if the Applicant's representative wished to test whether the Applicant's ongoing detention, pending the outcome of his judicial review proceedings was unconstitutional, that he could pursue an appropriate action in this respect. The Minister noted that in circumstances where the Applicant has been assessed as somebody who does not engage Australia's non-refoulement obligations that he is not currently facing the prospect of indefinite detention, and that the decision to affirm the decision under review to refuse the Applicant a Bridging E visa will not result in the Applicant being indefinitely detained. The Minister's representative submitted that the impact on Australian businesses was not relevant in the circumstances of this case and should be afforded neutral weight.
25. Overall, it was the Minister's position that primary considerations1,2, and 5 weighed against the Applicant and outweighed primary considerations 3,and 4.

1. The character test is defined in s 501(6) of the Act. A person will not pass the character test if they have a substantial criminal record. The phrase 'substantial criminal record' is defined in s 501(7) and includes circumstances where a person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.
2. Subsection 501(1) of the Act provides that the Minister may refuse to grant a visa to a person if the person does not satisfy the Minister that the person passes the character test.
3. In considering whether the decision under subsection 501(1) of the Act to refuse to grant the Applicant's visa should be affirmed or set aside a decision maker must apply Ministerial Direction 110 pursuant to section 499 of the Act.
4. Paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110 provides overarching principles which the Tribunal has 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 non­ citizen's conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation.

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

1. Part 2 of Direction 110 identifies the considerations the Tribunal must take into account where relevant to a decision.[1]
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. It is not in dispute that the Applicant fails the character test as he has a substantial criminal record for the purposes of s 501(6)(a) and 7(c) of the Act.
2. In considering whether the decision under subsection 501(1) of the Act to refuse to grant the Applicant's visa should be affirmed or set aside a decision maker must apply Ministerial Direction 110 pursuant to section 499 of the Act.
3. As the Applicant does not pass the character test, the sole issue for determination is whether the Tribunal can be satisfied that there is another reason why the refusal of the Applicant's Bridging E visa should be set aside.

Primary Consideration 1: Protection of the Australian Community

1. The Tribunal must have regard to the protection of the Australia community from criminal or other serious conduct. Relevantly, paragraph 8.1.1 of the Direction states:

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. To that end, the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. In this respect, 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.

1. Paragraph 8.1.1 of Direction 110 provides that decision-makers should also give consideration to the 'nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's conduct to date' and paragraph 8.1.2 requires consideration of 'the risk to the Australian community, should the non-citizen commit further offending or engage in other serious conduct.'

Nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct to date

1. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that prior to 2020 the Applicant did not have a criminal history.
2. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that on 23 September 2022, the Applicant was convicted of contravening a prohibition/restriction in an apprehended violence order (domestic) for which he was subject to a section 10A conviction with no other penalty.
3. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the circumstances leading to the imposition of an apprehended violence order occurred on 26 March 2020 during which time the Applicant was involved in the manufacture of illicit drugs. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the apprehended violence order was taken out by the police to protect his wife.
4. The police evidence before the Tribunal located at pages 680-681 of the hearing book indicates that the Applicant and a friend attended the Applicant's residence in Granville (which he rented for his own use) to find his wife and her friend at the premises. The Applicant questioned, why his wife was at the premises, and she informed the Applicant that she was cleaning the unit out and intending to hand over the keys to the real estate agent to retrieve the rental bond. The Applicant frustrated by his wife's endeavour to do this without his permission wanted the keys back. An argument ensued between the Applicant and his wife with the Applicant attempting to grab the keys from the handbag of his wife whilst it was on her shoulder. The evidence indicates that a physical altercation occurred between the Applicant and his wife whilst trying to get the keys off each other until the Applicant's wife's friend intervened.
5. The Applicant's wife's friend contacted the police. Police attended the premises and spoke to both parties, police arrested the Applicant and obtained an interim domestic violence order protecting the Applicant's wife. The evidence indicates that the Applicant's wife informed police that the Applicant had assaulted her the day before, showing bruises on parts of her body. Police then interviewed the Applicant whilst he was in custody. The Applicant denied any assault towards his wife. He claimed that he was assaulted by his wife's friend. Police obtained a witness statement from the Applicant's male friend who was at Granville at the time of the altercation who confirmed that the Applicant had not assaulted his wife and that his wife's friend had not assaulted the Applicant. The Applicant's wife's friend who had called the police was unwilling to provide a statement to police. The police facts sheet with respect to the offending notes that:

"due to the three conflicting and varying stories, police are unable to determine who got assaulted, as each party was blaming another person. Due to the person in need of protection having visible bruising, police have applied for an apprehended violence order to protect the person in need of protection as she fears for her safety".

6. At the review hearing the Applicant and his wife gave evidence to the Tribunal with respect to this offending. The Applicant's wife stated that the Applicant had never assaulted her or been violent to her. She was aggrieved by the Applicant having a lease on separate premises in Granville. She was attempting to retrieve the keys to these premises from the Applicant and claims that it was at this time she learnt that the Applicant was involved in illicit drug manufacture. At hearing she claimed to have lied to police with respect to the Applicant assaulting her claiming that "I got him into a small problem with the police and the AVO to put a stop to his illegal activities". The Applicant's wife gave evidence that she had never called the police on her husband due to violence, however, she had called the police in the past with respect to her previous partner Nathan, the father of her child, who had been violent towards her. The Applicant's wife claimed that the bruising was caused by what she described as "intensive cleaning" and that she was cleaning a manhole and removing mousetraps when she injured herself and was bruised. She advised the Tribunal that when she learnt that the police had taken out an apprehended violence order to protect her that she went to the police station and asked the police to remove it and was advised that she and the Applicant would need to attend court.
7. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that on 16 December 2022, the Applicant was convicted of manufacture prohibited drug, large commercial quantity. The Applicant was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment commencing on 29 June 2020, and concluding on 28 June 2028, with a non-parole period with conditions of 5 years, commencing on 29 June 2020 and concluding on 28 June 2025. The District Court also made a forfeiture order with respect to $10,050 in cash.
8. The evidence indicates that between January 2020 and June 2020 the Applicant and his co-offenders, that included his wife, were involved in the manufacture of methylamphetamines.
9. The evidence indicates that the Applicant's role in the offending was noted by Judge Robinson to be "that of the person in charge of the Australian part of the enterprise, likely working with other individuals based internationally". The weight of the evidence before the Tribunal rises to the level of the Applicant and his co-offenders engaging in illicit drug manufacture in Australia with the involvement of some international players, however the extent to which those international players were involved in the criminal enterprise is not clear.
10. The Tribunal has had regard to the evidence of the Applicant that his engagement in the drug manufacture was brought about by duress from international players in Iran who had made threats to and indeed assaulted members of his family. In this regard the Tribunal has had regard to the sentencing comments of Judge Robinson, which forms the best evidence before the Tribunal with respect to this. Judge Robinson noted that:

"the offender submits that the report of Dr Pusey founds non-exculpatory duress as a mitigating factor. It is said to arise from the offenders assertion that he engaged in the conduct due to threats to his safety and that of his family. The offender did not give evidence to attest to the truth of those assertions, nor is there any other material before the Court to substantiate or corroborate his claim of duress. The Crown submits that the Court would not be satisfied of any asserted duress. In its submission, the telephone intercept evidence, as referred to in the agreed facts in more detail, is inconsistent on occasion with the asserted duress, as is the offender's behaviour throughout the offending period".

1. As noted, the Applicant was sentenced to a term of 8 years imprisonment for his drug manufacture offending with a non-parole period of 5 years.

1. The impact of the offending on victims is able to be considered where this information is available. There is no information on the impact of the offending on the victims of the offending. However, of illicit drug use has a clear impact on the drug users, their family and friends and on the wider community.

1. The Applicant's offending is limited to the period from January to June 2020.

1. The Applicant's offending is confined to a 6month period between January and June 2020.

1. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the Applicant has provided false or misleading information.

Whether the non-citizen has re-offended since being formally warned, or otherwise being made aware in writing of the consequences of further offending in regard to the non-citizens' migration status.

1. The Applicant has not been the subject of a warning with respect to the consequences of further offending.
2. The Tribunal finds that having regard to the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's offending conduct to date with respect to the manufacture of methamphetamines at a commercial quantity that it comes within the ambit of very serious offending and that the manufacture of illicit drugs such as methamphetamines is highly impactful on the Australian community.
3. Overall, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant's drug manufacture offending must be viewed very seriously.
4. The Tribunal finds that the risk to the Australian community, should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct such as the manufacture of illicit drugs would be substantial.

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

Paragraph 8.1.2 of the Direction provides in part:[2]

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.

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 non-citizen re­ offending; and
2. evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since their most recent offence (noting that decisions should not be delayed in order for rehabilitative courses to be undertaken).

1. The Tribunal has considered the evidence before it with respect to the risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.
2. To this end the Tribunal has closely considered the sentencing judgement of Judge Robinson dated 16 December 2022.
3. Judge Robinson noted that the Applicant pleaded guilty to the manufacture of a prohibited drug at a large commercial quantity and that by doing so he saved the District Court significant time, triggering a discount with respect to his sentencing. Judge Robinson noted that "I accept that the absence of any previous criminal convictions prior to this offending and the otherwise prosocial and stable lifestyle of the offender prior to it, is indicative of his good character generally, and entitles him to some leniency".
4. In this respect Judge Robinson considered the Applicant "to have reasonable prospects of rehabilitation. His prior history and general good character, his prior work history, the absence of any dependence issues, his acceptance of responsibility for his offending, his insight into his underlying conditions, willingness to and engagement in treatment for those conditions, and the possibility of some family support when he returns to the community, all support that conclusion".
5. Judge Robinson noted that she accepts "the assessments of both report writers that he presents with a low risk of reoffending, together with the assessment of the psychologist that his risk of reoffending will be reduced by his engagement in appropriate treatment".
6. Judge Robinson noted that the Applicant had worked hard to establish a business in Sydney and as noted identified the existence of other protective pro-social factors.
7. Judge Robinson's sentencing judgement notes that Catherine Dwyer of Goulburn Community Corrections office had prepared a Sentencing Assessment Report dated 15 December 2022. Judge Robinson notes that Ms Dwyer "confirmed much of the subjective matters raised in the psychological report. In addition, she confirmed the offender to currently hold a visa granted for criminal justice purposes. She confirmed him to have acknowledged his mistake and to similarly explain his offending conduct by reference to the threats. She reported him to have demonstrated insight into the impact of his offending on his partner, stepdaughter and parents. She also noted him to have expressed insight into the impact of drugs on individuals in the community. She assessed him to be a low risk of reoffending".
8. The Tribunal has had regard to the risk mitigation plan completed by Catherine Dwyer of Goulburn Community Corrections for parole purposes located at pages 243-251 of the hearing bundle. Ms Dwyer notes that if the Applicant was to be released into the community that he would live with his wife and stepdaughter and that his wife's mother and her partner lived in the same complex and appeared to provide prosocial influences. She described protective factors as being the Applicant having stable accommodation with his wife and stepdaughter in the community and close proximity to family members and access to employment. Ms Dwyer noted a previous apprehended violence order which expired in September 2021, and that there were no concerns with regard to domestic violence raised by the Applicant's wife. Ms Dwyer suggested a referral could be made to EQUIPS Foundation to address the Applicant's past offending behaviour. Having regard to the overall community assessment Ms Dwyer noted that "the proposed accommodation will allow Mr Saeidi to have a stable lifestyle and the prosocial influence of his family, while ensuring that he is not associated with any antisocial individuals".
9. The Tribunal has had regard to the pre-release report prepared by Linda Burridge, Manager of Goulburn Community Corrections, dated 3 December 2024. Ms Burridge noted that the Applicant had a satisfactory record in custody. The Applicant had a good post-release plan including employment and he had completed 16 sessions with victim services during his term of imprisonment. The report notes that the Applicant if released into the community would return to live with his wife and had a family support network with employment to commence upon release.
10. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the Applicant was granted early parole and was released from prison on 28 December 2024. The evidence before the Tribunal in the hearing bundle at 125-139 relates to the parole determination and parole conditions. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the Applicant after being released on parole on 28 December 2024, remained living in the community until the expiration of his Criminal Justice Stay visa on 28 June 2025, at which time the Applicant was detained at the Villawood Immigration Detention Centre.
11. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the terms of the Applicant's parole conditions were strict and initially involved the Applicant being the subject of electronic ankle bracelet monitoring and being subject to a reintegration home detention order. The conditions of the Applicant's parole were strict and required the Applicant to be of good behaviour, not commit offences, report to a community corrections officer at the time and place directed by the officer. The Applicant was also required to provide community corrections with details about where he would live, programs that he would participate in, treatment that he would engage in, employment, education, training and other activities. The Applicant would be subject to regular drug and alcohol testing and the Applicant was required to comply with all directions pertaining to electronic monitoring and was not to remove or tamper, damage or dispose of this electronic ankle monitoring equipment. The Applicant gave evidence at hearing that his parole would remain in place until 28 June 2028, the period in which his eight-year prison sentence was due to expire.
12. The evidence provided to the Tribunal at review hearing indicates that in the six months that the Applicant was residing in the community on parole from the end of December 2024 to the end of June 2024 that he complied with the strict conditions of electronic ankle monitoring. The Applicant advised that just prior to him being taken to immigration detention that Community Corrections determined that he no longer needed to be subject to electronic monitoring. The Applicant also gave evidence of a devolution in reporting requirements to Community Corrections during the six months that he was living in the community with his parole officer initially requesting weekly visits but reducing them over time to monthly.
13. The Tribunal finds that the oversight of the Applicant in the community under the umbrella of strict conditions imposed by the New South Wales State Parole Authority are a significant risk mitigation tool that will provide a very strong incentive for the Applicant not to engage in any further offending in the community. If the Applicant was to do so (as recognised by him in his evidence), he would be arrested and returned to prison where he would be required to serve out the balance of his term of imprisonment, through to 28 June 2028, with the potential of additional time being added to the original sentence for the breach of parole conditions.
14. The Applicant gave evidence at hearing that a large part of his imprisonment occurred during the Covid 19 global pandemic. This meant that a large part of his sentence was required to be served in onerous conditions including lockdown for between 23-24 hours per day. The onerous prison conditions that the Applicant experienced because of the pandemic, and the fact that English was his second language, were recognised by Judge Robinson in her sentencing judgement.
15. The Applicant gave evidence at the review hearing that being imprisoned for a period of 4 and a half years had a substantial impact on him. The Applicant gave evidence that imprisonment provided a strong incentive not to engage in further offending behaviour. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant's extended period of imprisonment will act as a strong deterrent with respect to the Applicant engaging in future offending. The Applicant gave evidence that an additional incentive is his wife and stepdaughter and his desire to be part of their lives and to contribute to the household.
16. The Tribunal finds that the evidence before it indicates the Applicant has a low risk of reoffending in the future. As noted, the Applicant found imprisonment to be a harsh and sobering experience one that he never wants to repeat. The Tribunal places significant weight on the fact that the Applicant will be overseen by probation and parole services in New South Wales until June 2028 with very strict parole conditions in place. If the Applicant was to breach these conditions, the Applicant is cognizant of the fact that he will be immediately returned to prison to serve the balance of his term with the prospect of additional prison time for the breach of parole.
17. The Tribunal notes that if it were to set aside the refusal of the Applicant's Bridging E visa that the Department will be required to determine whether the Applicant meets the balance of the primary and secondary criteria (beyond character) relevant to the grant of a Bridging E visa. This fact is noted in the submissions of the Respondent. Further that the Department in processing a Bridging E visa can consider the imposition of a range of visa conditions attached to the Bridging E visa which may stipulate reporting requirements, the imposition of a financial security, maintaining an address, notifying of a change of address, not engaging in criminal conduct and restrictions on work. Hence the grant of a Bridging E visa to the Applicant can impose the stipulation of enforceable conditions which the Applicant would need to meet or face the risk of being breached. In the view of the Tribunal the grant of a Bridging E visa with conditions operates as a further tool of risk mitigation. The Respondent in the SFIC provided on behalf of the Minister concedes that if the decision under review is set aside by the Tribunal, the Applicant "will need to demonstrate that he meets the balance of the criteria for a Bridging E (Class WE) visa.
18. The Tribunal also finds that the Applicant has a number of prosocial and protective factors in place in the community. The Applicant has been married to an Australian citizen since 2019 and his wife gave compelling evidence to the Tribunal about the nature of their relationship. The evidence further indicates that the Applicant has a close relationship with his stepdaughter and has been a positive influence in her life, despite the fact that he has been removed from her life for a significant period, as a consequence of his imprisonment. The Applicant's wife's mother and her partner are Australian citizens and live in close proximity to the Applicant's wife and stepdaughter and will provide support to the Applicant in the community. As noted by Judge Robinson the Applicant has a consistent work history in Australia, the evidence indicates that when he was released from prison on parole in December 2024 that he commenced work in the construction sector immediately and that he has work opportunities in both the construction and automotive sectors if he is released from the Villawood Detention Centre. The Tribunal agrees with the sentiment expressed by Judge Robinson that the Applicant's employment history can be considered to be a prosocial and protective factor as is the fact that he has no history of dependence.

Conclusion as to the protection of the Australian community

1. The Applicant's offending is very serious and offending of a similar nature in the future may cause significant harm to the Australian community.
2. The Tribunal considers that this primary consideration weighs strongly against setting aside the refusal of the Applicant's Bridging E visa, however the weight apportioned to this consideration is tempered by the significant risk mitigation factors discussed above.

Primary consideration 2: Family Violence committed by the non-citizen

1. Paragraph 4(1) of Direction 110 defines family violence as violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person's family or causes the family member to be fearful. Paragraph 8.2(2) provides that this consideration is relevant where a non-citizen has been convicted of an offence involving family violence or there is information or evidence from independent and authoritative sources indicating the non-citizen is or has been involved in the perpetration of family violence.
2. The Applicant has been convicted of a breach of an apprehended violence order on 23 September 2022. The Tribunal is unable to go behind the court finding with respect to the breach, however it is able to have regard to the circumstances of the offending behaviour.
3. The evidence with respect to that offending is as follows.
4. The circumstances leading to the imposition of the apprehended violence order occurred on 26 March 2020 during which time the Applicant was in the throws of his involvement in the manufacture of illicit drugs.
5. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the apprehended violence order was taken out by the police to protect his wife.
6. The police evidence with respect to this offending at pages 680-681 of the hearing book indicates that the Applicant and a male friend attended residential premises in Granville (which he rented for his own use) at which time they found his wife and her female friend at the premises. The Applicant questioned, his wife as to what she was doing at the premises, and she informed him that she was cleaning the unit out and intending to hand over the keys to the real estate agent to retrieve the rental bond. (The Applicant's wife gave evidence at hearing that she was upset at the Applicant retaining separate premises and it had raised certain questions in her mind). The Applicant frustrated by his wife's endeavour to take the apartment keys without his permission wanted the keys back. An argument ensued between them with the Applicant attempting to grab the keys from the handbag of his wife whilst it was on her shoulder. The evidence indicates that a physical altercation occurred between the Applicant and his wife whilst trying to get the keys off each other until the Applicant's wife's friend intervened by contacting the police.
7. The police attended the premises and spoke to both parties, police arrested the Applicant and took out an interim domestic violence order protecting his wife. The police evidence indicates that the Applicant's wife informed police that the Applicant had assaulted her the day before, showing bruises on parts of her body. Police then interviewed the Applicant whilst he was in custody. The Applicant denied any assault towards his wife. He claimed that he was assaulted by his wife's girlfriend.
8. Police obtained a witness statement from the Applicant's male friend who was at Granville at the time of the altercation who confirmed that the Applicant had not assaulted his wife and that his wife's friend had not assaulted the Applicant. The Applicant's wife's female friend who had called the police was unwilling to provide a statement to police. The police facts sheet noted that:

"due to the three conflicting and varying stories, police are unable to determine who got assaulted, as each party was blaming another person. Due to the person in need of protection having visible bruising, police have applied for an apprehended violence order to protect the person in need of protection as she fears for her safety".

9. At the review hearing the Applicant and his wife gave evidence to the Tribunal with respect to this offending. The Applicant's wife stated that the Applicant had never assaulted her or been violent toward her. She was aggrieved by the Applicant having a lease on separate premises in Granville. She was attempting to retrieve the keys to these premises from the Applicant and claims that it was around this time she learnt that the Applicant was involved in illicit drug manufacture. At hearing she claimed to have lied to police with respect to the Applicant assaulting her causing bruising, claiming that "I got him into a small problem with the police resulting in the AVO to put a stop to his illegal activities". The Applicant's wife gave evidence that she had never called the police on her husband due to violence, however, she had called the police in the past with respect to a previous partner Nathan, the father of her child, who had been violent towards her.
10. The Applicant's wife claimed that the bruising was caused by what she described as "intensive cleaning" and that she was cleaning a manhole and removing mousetraps when she injured herself and was bruised. She advised the Tribunal that when she learnt that the police had taken out an apprehended violence order to protect her that she went to the police station and asked the police to remove it, however, they would not, and she was advised that she and the Applicant would need to attend court.
11. Reference to the offending leading to an apprehended violence order is made in the Pre-release report from Corrective Services NSW which can be located at pages 253-254 of the hearing bundle. That report addresses the factors relating to that offending. It notes that:

"Mr Saeidi was the defendant in a 2yr AVO issued on 26.05.2020 with the PINOP being his partner. The conditions on this order were complete no contact with distance restrictions. This order was annulled on 02.06.2020 with a new order made on 04.09.2020 with conditions 1 A.B.C. The AVO incident occurred in the middle of Mr Saeidi's offending. Mr Saeidi described the incident as an argument fuelled by the stress the couple were under. > > Mr Saeidi stated that the AVO was issued following a non-Iranian friend of his wife, witnessing an argument. Unused to the physically and verbally expressive way that characterises Iranian interactions the friend called the Police. > > Mr Saeidi's explanation of him following Iranian culture, within his relationship, is consistent with his explanation of how he decided to be involved in his current offending".

12. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the Applicant has been convicted of an offence for breaching an apprehended violence order initially put in place by New South Wales police and later confirmed by the courts. The Tribunal is unable to go behind these findings. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant was subject to a section 10A order for the breach. As has been noted in NSW, a Section 10A order in a case involving a breach of an AVO means the court has recorded a conviction but imposed no further penalty. This is suggestive of the fact that the Local Court saw fit in the circumstances of the case before it, to impose no further penalty beyond the conviction for the breach.
13. It appears from the police evidence referred to above that inconsistent accounts had been provided to police from those present at the time of the offending conduct which led to an apprehended violence order.
14. The Tribunal has given consideration to the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the Applicant and notes that the Direction requires the following factors must be considered where they are relevant. Firstly, the frequency of the non-citizens conduct and whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness.
15. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that this was an isolated incident during an altercation between the Applicant and his wife. The police were called by a third party during a heated argument between the couple. NSW police implemented an interim apprehended violence order. The evidence of the Applicant's wife is that upon a realisation that an order had been put in place, that she and the Applicant attended the police station to try to have the order removed as she did not hold any fear. The police refused to comply with this request and the matter was eventually dealt with by the courts.
16. The evidence indicates that the breach of the apprehended violence order was a breach of a contact provision of the order and the evidence further indicates that contact was acquiesced to by his wife.
17. There is no evidence of a frequency in family violence engaged in by the Applicant or any trend of increasing seriousness. There is no evidence before the Tribunal of the cumulative effect of repeated acts of family violence perpetrated by the Applicant against his wife.
18. The Tribunal notes that Direction 110 states that the Australian Government has serious concerns about conferring on non-citizens who engage in family violence the privilege of entering or remaining in Australia and the Direction is specific in this respect, namely, that the government's concerns in this regard are proportionate to the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the non-citizen.
19. The Tribunal finds that the altercation between the Applicant and his wife in March 2020 does not rise to the level of seriousness as envisaged by 8.2 of the Direction. In making this finding the Tribunal has had regard to the evidence of the Applicant's wife under oath that at no time during their relationship has he been physically abusive towards her and that she has never felt threatened or unsafe in the Applicant's presence.
20. The Tribunal finds that the primary consideration of family violence committed by the Applicant, namely the breach of the AVO must be given some weight against setting aside the refusal of the Applicant's Bridging E visa.

Primary Consideration 3: The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia

1. The Tribunal is required to consider 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. The Tribunal is also required to consider the strength, nature and duration of any other ties that the Applicant has to the Australian community having regard to:

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

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

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

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

1. The evidence indicates that the Applicant has resided in Australia for almost 13 years including periods that he was in prison and held in immigration detention.
2. The Applicant's wife is an Australian citizen. The evidence indicates that the Applicant and his wife met in 2017 when the Applicant was working as a mechanic, and she had taken her car there for repairs.
3. A relationship developed from the initial meeting and the couple married in April 2019.
4. The evidence indicates that the Applicant's wife had a daughter on 16 February 2014 to a former partner. The evidence indicates that the former partner has no relationship with his daughter. The Applicant's wife gave evidence at hearing that the Applicant and her daughter had known each other since she was aged 3. The evidence indicates that the Applicant's wife's daughter was aged 5 at the time of their wedding.
5. The evidence of the Applicant's wife is that from the time that they first met to the time that the Applicant was remanded in custody in June 2020 that her daughter and the Applicant developed a close relationship.
6. The evidence indicates that when the Applicant was released from prison in December 2024 that he resumed living with his wife and her daughter, and that the relationship between them flourished in the six-month period before the Applicant was placed in immigration detention.
7. The evidence indicates that the Applicant has provided care and support to his wife's mother who is vision impaired and to her partner who suffers with physiological health conditions.
8. The evidence indicates that the Applicant has held consistent employment in Australia from the time that he was released from an immigration detention centre in Queensland in 2014 until the time that he was imprisoned in June 2020 on remand. The evidence indicates that when the Applicant was released from prison on parole in December 2024 that he returned to employment which he maintained until the expiration of his criminal justice stay visa and him being placed in immigration detention.
9. The evidence indicates that the Applicant's wife after her release from prison, and the return of her daughter to her care and control, struggled financially in the absence of an income from the Applicant. The evidence indicates that when the Applicant was released from prison and returned to work that he was able to make a strong financial contribution to the family's finances.
10. Evidence provided to the Tribunal and review indicates that between December 2024 and June 2025 the Applicant resumed an active role in the life of his wife's daughter assisting her with schoolwork, attending church with her, taking her to dance and acting classes and providing companionship and emotional support.
11. Evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the Applicant's wife has a number of mental health conditions, corroborated in the evidence, and that the Applicant's removal from her life and the life of her daughter in June 2025 has been impactful on her mental health.
12. The evidence before the Tribunal also indicates that the removal of the Applicant from the life of his stepdaughter has been substantially impactful upon her.
13. The Applicant's Australian work history is corroborated in references from his past employers.
14. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the Applicant as a practicing Christian has been involved in his local church community at St Phillip's Auburn Anglican Church.
15. The Tribunal notes that the Respondent acknowledges that primary consideration 3 weighs in favour of the Applicant.
16. The Tribunal finds that having regard to the evidence before it that the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia weigh strongly in favour of setting aside the refusal of the Applicant's Bridging E visa application.

Primary Consideration 4: Best interests of minor children affected by the decision

1. Paragraph 8.4 of the Direction requires decision-makers to decide whether the cancellation is, or is not, in the best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision.[3] This consideration applies only if the child is under 18 years old at the time of the decision. In considering the best interests of each child, the factors that must be considered where relevant include:[4]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. The Applicant has an 11-year-old stepdaughter who has been a part of his life since the inception of a relationship with her mother in 2017, at which time she was 3 years old.
2. The Applicant and his wife's relationship became a committed one in 2018, and they married in April 2019.
3. The evidence indicates that the family lived together until the Applicant and his wife were arrested and remanded in custody with respect to their offending. The Applicant's stepdaughter was placed into the care of her paternal grandmother at this time and when her paternal grandmother became unwell, she was made a ward of the state.
4. The evidence indicates that the Applicant's stepdaughter returned to the care and control of her mother, when she was released from her term of imprisonment in 2022.
5. The evidence indicates that when the Applicant was released on parole from prison in December 2024 that he resumed cohabiting with his wife and stepdaughter and resumed a paternal role in his stepdaughter's life until the end of June 2025 at which time he was placed into immigration detention.
6. The Applicant's representative submits that the relationship between the Applicant and his stepdaughter is a very strong one. The Respondent argues that because of the Applicant's extended period of imprisonment and now immigration detention that he has been removed from his stepdaughter's life for significant periods of time and that his wife has fulfilled a parental role in relation to her daughter.
7. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the Applicant has been the only paternal figure in his stepdaughter's life since she was three years old. The evidence indicates that the connection that developed between the Applicant and his stepdaughter from the time he commenced cohabiting with her mother to the time of his imprisonment in June 2020 that they developed a close bond.
8. Evidence has been provided at review that indicates that during the time that the Applicant was in prison that he wrote to his stepdaughter on a regular basis and that his stepdaughter also wrote to him and sent him cards.
9. The Applicant gave evidence that when he was released from prison in December 2024 on parole that the relationship between himself and his stepdaughter resumed. The Applicant stated that he would spend quality time with his stepdaughter, taking her to dancing and acting lessons, taking her to their local church and assisting with her homework, particularly mathematics. The Applicant's evidence is that in the six months that he had resumed a close relationship with his stepdaughter that the relationship appeared to go from strength to strength.
10. The Applicant's wife's evidence to the Tribunal was forthright and compelling with respect to the relationship of her daughter with the Applicant, and with respect to the impact of the Applicant's removal from the family unit at the end of June 2025 at which time he went into immigration detention after 6 months together as a family unit.
11. The Applicant's wife advised that her daughter is very attached to the Applicant. She advised that she is comfortable talking to him and she obtains guidance from him. He has given her direction in how to control her emotions and he helps her when she is down and has taken on a parental role. She described the bond between her daughter and the Applicant as a strong one. She advised that her daughter introduces the Applicant to her friends as her father. She advised that her daughter never had any paternal relationship with her natural father, Nathan. She advised that her daughter considers the Applicant to be the only father that she has ever known and that she is safe and comfortable with him.
12. The Applicant's wife advised that when the Applicant was removed from the community and placed into the Villawood Detention Centre that the family were going to go out to celebrate the fact that parole authorities had, at that time, authorised that the Applicant would be no longer subject to wearing a monitoring bracelet. The Applicant's wife advised that when the Applicant was taken to the Villawood Detention Centre that she had to explain the Applicant's removal to her daughter and that her daughter became very withdrawn, confused, sad and had mixed emotions. The Applicant's wife described her daughter as being high achieving and stated that she was offered the position of captain of sports at her school, however, since the Applicant had been placed in immigration detention she had been exhibiting behavioural issues. There were several misconduct issues at school and her daughter had to keep going to see the principal. She described her daughter as being down. She advised that her daughter became physically sick and that her weight dropped. She advised that her daughter in the past loved school and loved her studies, however the stress of the Applicant's removal from the family unit had a substantial impact upon her. The Applicant's wife stated that with the Applicant being removed from the family unit, that the care responsibilities for her daughter had fallen squarely on her shoulders alone. She advised that when the Applicant was living with them that he contributed significantly to the running of the household and the care of his stepdaughter.
13. The Tribunal is not persuaded by the submission that that the relationship between the Applicant and his stepdaughter has been characterised by significant absences such as his imprisonment and his immigration detention.
14. The evidence clearly indicates that in the time that the Applicant has been in the life of his wife that he has been the central male role model in the life of her daughter.
15. The evidence indicates that the Applicant's stepdaughter, in the absence of her natural father in her life sees the Applicant as being her father. Despite periods of absences in his stepdaughter's life, the periods when they have been together have been characterised by a strong bond. The Applicant's wife's evidence is strong with respect to this, and it is troubling that a high functioning 11-year-old has been impacted by the Applicant's removal from her life again, which has had seen the development of behavioural issues that had not existed in the past.
16. The evidence indicates that Applicant's stepdaughter would be adversely impacted by the Applicant's removal from Australia and the impact of his recent removal in June 2025 has been demonstrated with her changed behaviours and physical weight loss.
17. The Tribunal finds that the best interests of a minor child, the Applicant's step-daughter weighs very heavily in favour of setting aside the refusal of the Applicant's Bridging E visa.

Primary Consideration 5: Expectations of the Australian community

1. Paragraph 8.5 of the Direction relevantly provides:[5]

(1) The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they may do so, the Australian community, as a norm, expects the Government to not allow such a non-citizen to enter or remain in Australia.

1. Paragraph 8.5(3) of Direction 110 states that these expectations apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
2. It is not for the Tribunal to determine for itself the expectations of the Australian community by reference to an Applicant's circumstances or evidence about those expectations. Rather the Tribunal must give effect to the 'norm' stipulated in the Direction.
3. 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 in the Direction, without independently assessing the community's expectations in the particular case.
4. The Applicant has failed to meet the Australian community's expectation that visa holders obey its laws when he engaged in the manufacture of a prohibited drug at a large commercial quantity.
5. Having regard to the Direction and the Applicant's offending, this consideration weighs heavily against revocation.

Legal consequences of decision under section 501 or 501CA

1. Paragraph 9.1 of Direction 110 states that decision-makers should be mindful that unlawful non-citizens are, in accordance with section 198 of the Act, liable to be removed from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable, and in the meantime, detention under section 189, noting also that section 197C(1) of the Act provides that for the purposes of section 198, it is irrelevant whether Australia has non-refoulement obligations in respect of an unlawful non-citizen.
2. On 1 June 2017 the Applicant applied for a Safe Haven Enterprise visa.
3. On 15 October 2019 a delegate of the Minister made a decision to refuse the Applicant's application for a Safe Haven Enterprise visa. The delegate found the Applicant was not owed protection obligations by Australia with respect to the Refugees Convention to which Australia is a signatory. The delegate further found that the Applicant was not owed complementary protection obligations by Australia.
4. The Applicant sought review of this decision with the then Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA). The IAA affirmed the primary decision of the delegate on 22 November 2019 finding that the Applicant was not owed protection obligations by Australia.
5. On 23 December 2019 the Applicant lodged an application with the Federal Circuit Court of Australia seeking judicial review of the IAA decision, which is strictly confined to the existence of error of law in the IAA decision.
6. This matter is yet to be listed before the Federal Circuit Court for consideration.
7. In the event that the Federal Circuit Court determines that there is an error of law in the IAA decision the matter would be remitted back to the Administrative Review Tribunal for determination according to law. At that time the Tribunal could consider the Applicant's claims for protection in a de novo review and determine whether or not the Applicant is owed protection obligations.
8. The High Court of Australia in Plaintiff M1-2021 v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 17 found that the Tribunal is not required to have regard to an Australia's non-refoulement obligations if an Applicant in a 501CA(4) matter remains capable of seeking a protection visa.
9. As discussed in this case the Applicant had made a claim for protection to the Department in June 2017 which was refused in October 2019 and then affirmed at merits review before the IAA in November 2019.
10. The Applicant has pursued the IAA decision to the Federal Circuit Court which is yet to be determined and as discussed is confined to error of law.
11. The Applicants representative contends that Australia's non-refoulement obligations are engaged with respect to the prospective removal of the Applicant to Iran.
12. On the basis of this contention the Tribunal must engage with the claims raised by the Applicant.
13. The Applicant claims that he has converted to Christianity, that he was baptised in prison and that whilst living in the community he attended an Anglican church in Auburn in Sydney. At hearing the Applicant stated that he would not be able to freely practice his religious beliefs in the event that he was returned to Iran because of the fact that it is an Islamic theocracy.
14. The Tribunal notes that at the time of assessing the Applicant's claims for protection in June 2017 the Department considered claims by the Applicant that when he was released from detention in Australia, he attended a Mormon church in Brisbane. Upon arriving in Sydney, he attended an Iranian church in Parramatta. He also had attended the Seventh Day Adventist Church with his partner and now wife in Sydney. The Applicant considers himself to be a Christian. The Applicant has provided evidence to the Tribunal at review that he has more recently engaged with an Anglican church in Auburn as part of his Christian beliefs. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant's claims of fearing persecution on the basis of his conversion to Christianity if he was returned to Iran were comprehensively assessed by the Department and the IAA. Determinations were made by the Department and the IAA at the Applicant was not owed protection obligations and that Australia did not as a consequence owe the Applicant international non-refoulement obligations.
15. The Applicant has also claimed that he owes the family of his first wife in Iran a number of gold coins part, of an agreed dowry, and despite being divorced from his first wife this amount was still payable. The Applicant claimed that he has no capacity to pay this dowry. The Applicant fears persecution at the hands of his first wife's family. Once again, the Tribunal notes that this claim was comprehensively assessed by both the Department and the IAA who determined that with respect to this claim the Applicant was not owed protection obligations and that the Applicant was not somebody in respect of whom Australia owed international non-refoulement obligations.
16. The Applicant has also claimed that if he is returned to Iran that he will be forced to serve 2 to 5 years of compulsory military service in that country. This component of the Applicant's claims was dealt with by the Department and the IAA who determined that the Applicant was not owed protection obligations with respect to this claim and hence was not somebody in respect of whom Australia owed international non-refoulement obligations.
17. The Applicant has also claimed that he may face systemic persecution and serious human rights violations in Iran in this has a non-practising Muslim and based on his Facebook and Instagram posts critical of the Iranian regime. Both the Department and the IAA considered this component of the Applicant's claims for protection and determined that the Applicant was not owed protection obligations with respect to this claim and hence was not somebody in respect of whom Australia owed international non-refoulement obligations.
18. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the outcome of the Applicant's judicial review application in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia remain speculative. The Applicant is currently assessed as a person who does not engage Australia's non-refoulement obligations. On that basis the Applicant is not currently facing the prospect of an indefinite period of detention.
19. The Respondent in submissions to the Tribunal noted that if the Tribunal sets aside the decision under review, the Applicant will need to demonstrate that he meets the balance of the criteria for a Bridging E visa. The submission notes and the Tribunal accepts that if the Tribunal was to set aside the decision under review, that the Applicant would not be immediately released from immigration detention until he was able to satisfy the Department that he met the balance of the requirements for the grant of a Bridging E visa.
20. In the event that the Tribunal affirmed the refusal decision the Applicant would be subject to an extended period of immigration detention and the Tribunal finds that the legal consequences of the decision of the Tribunal at review is impactful upon the Applicant and should be afforded some weight in favour of setting aside the refusal of his Bridging E visa application.

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

a) the non-citizen's age and health;

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

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

1. The Applicant is physically well apart from a ligament issue in his finger which is being overseen and treated in detention. The Applicant has also in the past being diagnosed as suffering with depression and anxiety along with an adjustment disorder.
2. There is no current evidence before the Tribunal with respect to the Applicant continuing to be impacted by the above mental health conditions.
3. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant is 34 years old and possesses skills in the automotive and construction sectors, skills that should be transferable in Iran.
4. The Applicant stated that if he returned to Iran that the quality of health care is inferior to that available in Australia. The Applicant submits that in the event that he was returned to Iran, the standard of care available to him for his physiological and mental health conditions would not be at Australian standards and that his mental health would likely be adversely impacted. This would no doubt be exacerbated by the Applicant's removal from his wife and stepdaughter in Australia.
5. Overall, the Tribunal finds that this consideration should be given some weight in favour of setting aside the refusal of the Applicants Bridging E visa.

1. The Applicant asserts and this is corroborated in a letter from his former employer Mr Gharibi, that there would be an economic impact on Mr Gharibi's business, in the event that the Applicant was removed from Australia.
2. The Tribunal agrees with the Respondents submission that this consideration of Direction 110 concerns itself with the removal of the Applicant from Australia "significantly compromising the delivery of a major project, or the delivery of an important service in Australia. The evidence before the Tribunal is such that those envisaged circumstances do not arise in the circumstances of this case and hence neutral weight is afforded to this consideration.

1. The primary considerations of the protection of the Australian community weighs strongly in favour of affirming the refusal of the Applicant's Bridging E visa. The Applicants index offending between January 2020 and June 2020 was very serious.
2. However, the Tribunal has concluded based on the weight of the evidence before it that the risk of the Applicant re-offending or indeed engaging in further criminal conduct in Australia is low and that there are a large number of protective factors in place that have fortified the Tribunals decision in this respect. Those reasons have been extensively referred to in the body of this decision.
3. Paramount in the view if the Tribunal is the fact that the Applicant will be subject to strict parole conditions and oversight of the NSW Parole Authority until the 28 June 2028. He was subject to these conditions from 28 December 2024 to 28 June 2025 and he fully complied with those conditions. His electronic ankle monitoring and strict conditions of release were complied with. His ankle monitor was removed just prior to him being placed in immigration detention. His reporting conditions were reduced by his parole officer from weekly to monthly. The Applicant knows full well that one breach of these conditions will see him being returned to prison to serve the balance of his term and a potential extension to the term due to any parole breach if it were to occur. This oversight, the conditions that could be applied to a Bridging E visa, the Applicants marital relationship to an Australian citizen, his love of his stepdaughter and her love of the Applicant, prosocial factors of family and employment and no dependence history, all lead to a finding that risk is substantially mitigated in this case. Hence the weight given to protection of the Australian community has been moderated by these factors.
4. The Tribunal has given consideration to the breach of the apprehended violence order by the Applicant. The Tribunal has found that this comes within the parameters of family violence. Having regard to 8.2(1) of Direction 110 the Tribunal notes 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 Tribunal notes that the Direction goes on to state that "the government's concerns in this regard are proportionate to the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the non-citizen".
5. The Tribunal has considered the facts before it with respect to this offending. The Tribunal notes that the apprehended violence order was initially put in place by the police and confirmed by the courts. The Applicant breached a contact provision of those orders. He did so with the acquiescence of his wife. The Tribunal notes that this offending occurred in March 2020 when the Applicant was in the throes of his serious index offending. This in no way exonerates the Applicants offending in this respect. The circumstances giving rise to the apprehended violence order and the subsequent breach appear to be a one-off. There is no evidence of the frequency in the Applicant's conduct, there is no evidence of a trend of increasing seriousness. There is no evidence of the cumulative effect of repeated acts of family violence. The Tribunal accordingly finds that some weight should be given to this consideration in favour of affirming the refusal of the Applicants Bridging E visa, however, not the strong weight suggested by the Respondent.
6. The Tribunal finds that with respect to primary consideration 5, expectations of the Australian community, that this consideration should be given significant weight in favour of affirming the refusal decision to grant the Applicant a Bridging E visa.
7. The direction is clear, that the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws whilst in Australia and not to engage in serious conduct in breach of this expectation. The Applicant between January and June 2020 clearly breached this expectation when he engaged in his index offending of manufacturing a prohibited drug at a large commercial quantity. Australians are acutely aware of the impact of methylamphetamine in the community upon users, their families and associates, the police, healthcare service providers and the judiciary.
8. The Tribunal finds that the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia weigh strongly in favour of revocation and are afforded considerable weight owing to the impact that his removal would have on his wife and stepdaughter who are Australian citizens.
9. The best interests of the Applicant's stepdaughter an 11-year-old minor is given significant weight in favour of setting aside the refusal of the Applicants Bridging E visa for the extensive reasons provided.
10. The legal consequences of the decision for the reasons articulated are given some weight in favour of revocation due to the inherent uncertainty surrounding the Applicant's judicial review application and the impact of the outcome of that decision when it is finally delivered.
11. The extent of impediments the Applicant would be face in the event that he was removed from Australia and returned to Iran are given some weight in favour of setting aside the refusal of the Applicants Bridging E visa for the reasons outlined.
12. The Tribunal has considered the evidence of rehabilitation at the time of the decision. The Applicant has been assessed to pose a low risk of re-offending. The extended period of imprisonment, particularly during the global pandemic, has been impactful upon the Applicant. The Applicant has committed to ongoing counselling with Bettina Reader a trauma counsellor with whom he has been engaging and he has the support of his wife and prospective employers in the community.
13. The impact of the Applicant's removal from his stepdaughter would have a profound impact on the Applicant and upon her. There was clear evidence of the impact of the Applicant being returned to his stepdaughter's life from December 2024 to June 2025, only to be abruptly removed again. It has been most impactful. The Applicant's ties to the Australian community are strongly tethered to his wife, his stepdaughter, his mother-in-law and her partner and to his employers who attest to his skills, abilities and work ethic. Restating this the best interests of the Applicant's minor step-child, is given heavy weight in favour of setting aside the refusal of the Applicant's Bridging E visa.
14. The Tribunal on balance finds that primary considerations 1, 2 and 5 are outweighed by primary considerations 3 and 4 and 'other considerations' hence the correct and preferable decision is set aside the refusal of the Applicants Bridging E visa.

1. The decision of a delegate of the Minister dated 19 September 2025 to refuse to grant the Applicant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa is set aside and substituted with a decision not to refuse the grant of the visa under section 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

[1] Direction no. 110 - Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA.