The estimated value of the two clip seal bags located on 7 January 2023 containing "half eight ball" (1.75 grams) quantities of substance containing methylamphetamine is $500 - $3,600. The estimated value of the remaining two clip seal bags containing 0.961 grams and 1.063 grams of substance containing methylamphetamine if sold in single gram quantities is between $100 - $1,000.

The estimated value of the bag located on 17 April 2023 containing 3.485 grams of

substance containing methylamphetamine is:[13]

a. $700 - $3,800 if sold in an "eight ball" (3.5 grams} quantity. 0.280 grams

b. $24,5395 - $132.430 if sold in "point" (0.1 gram) quantities.[14]'

1. I will not accept that significant drug offending should not be found to be very serious simply because it is not one of the three categories of nominated very serious conduct in paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a) of the Direction. One need look no further than the impact of these substances on the fabric of our society. This was not lost on the learned sentencing Judge who told the Applicant: "You might have yourself seen or felt the misery that these drugs bring to people in the community, but they genuinely do, and that is why the court and the community views this type of offending so seriously."[15] This view has its endorsement in material before the Tribunal comprising respective reports from the National Ice Taskforce and National Drug Strategy. Both reports can only be understood in one way: that growing proliferation of these substances into our community constitutes a public administration emergency in this country and beyond. I have no hesitation in finding that this Applicant's indictable drug offending sentenced on 10 July 2024 was very serious.
2. I will make a similar finding about the Applicant's traffic history. I have earlier outlined the nature and extent of that traffic history. It has been so intensely and seriously committed that the community is fortunate to not have seen one of its members suffer very serious or fatal consequences because of it. There is no other way to view offences such as exceeding the speed limit by more than 40 kilometres per hour and driving a motor vehicle while an illicit drug is present in the driver's system. The further point is this: the regularity of the Applicant's traffic offending surely points to an increased risk of an adverse traffic incident. Thus far, his traffic offending has exclusively resulted in a significant cumulative quantum of fines and disqualification of his driving privileges. It is not unreasonable to infer that such conduct could have quite realistically resulted in fatal consequences for another road user. Elsewhere,[16] I have spoken of the extent of the community's exposure to harm as a result of irresponsible and unlawful driving. I repeat those comments here. There can no cavilling with a finding that the Applicant's traffic history has been very serious.
3. The Applicant's convictions and resulting sentences can be taken into account for the assessment of the nature and seriousness of his offending. Of his 19 convictions, at least seven have involved the imposition of custodial time to a cumulative total of just short of four and half years. Custodial terms are viewed as a reflection of the objective seriousness of the offending being punished and are otherwise the last resort of a judicial sentencing officer.[17] It is not insignificant that the cumulative total of the Applicant's custodial terms well exceed the length of his criminal history that runs for two years and one month (in terms of sentencing episodes) or which could also be described as about three years (in terms of dates of actual offending). Again, there is surely no cavilling with the proposition (and finding) that, pursuant to paragraph 8.1.1(1)(c) of the Direction, the sentences imposed on this Applicant across his relatively short offending history must now volubly speak to the very serious nature of his offending.
4. Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(e) of the Direction looks for any frequency to the Applicant's offending and whether it indicates any trend of increasing seriousness. First, the Applicant has a criminal history that, in sentencing terms, runs from December 2022 to January 2025 which is a period just over two years. He has convictions for the commission of 19 criminal offences. The commission of 19 offences across a barely two to three year criminal history is very frequent offending. Put another way, the commission of over nine offences per year across a given offending history must surely be frequent offending.

1. Second, does the criminal history indicate any trend increasing seriousness? I think it does. His first nine offences dealt with at his first two sentencing hearings involved commission of conduct of a mid-level of seriousness. His 10th and 11th convictions arose from the abovementioned two counts of possessing dangerous drugs, schedule 1 drug quantity of or exceeding schedule 3 but less than schedule 4 sentenced by Judge Hindman at the Brisbane Supreme Court on 10 July 2024. This second phase of the Applicant's offending involved property offending,[18] unlawful use of a motor vehicle offences (x2)[19] and one offence of going armed so as to cause fear.[20] To my mind, the level of its seriousness does escalate between the first and second phases of the Applicant's conduct. This paragraph 8.1.1(1)(e) strongly militates in favour of a finding that the totality of his offending has indeed been very serious.

1. Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(f) of the Direction looks for any cumulative effects of the Applicant's repeated offending. I will find there are several of them comprising: first, the Applicant's convictions for supplying schedule one drugs has directly contributed to the very significant impact of those substances on addicted users, their families and the community's public healthcare resources. It is not insignificant that the provision defining the offences of 'supplying schedule 1 dangerous drugs' of which the Applicant was convicted on 10 July 2024 carries a maximum penalty of 20 years' imprisonment.

1. Second, the Applicant's convictions for conduct involving the deprivation of a lawful owner's right to enjoy their property is, to my mind, a cumulative effect of his offending. He has fraudulently and dishonestly applied the property of another.[21] He has two convictions for unlawfully using a motor vehicle lawfully owned by someone else. He has respective convictions for receiving tainted property stolen from its lawful owner and of being in possession of stolen property.

1. Third, the Applicant's shocking traffic history, his two convictions for contravene direction or requirement of police officer[22] and obstruct police officer[23] together with his conviction for failure to appear in accordance with undertaking[24] are cumulatively indicative of a person who has refused to accept the lawful authority governing use of motor vehicles on Australian carriageways while also refusing to respect the lawful authority represented by a Court order or Police officer compelling him to do, or refrain from doing, something.

1. Fourth, the Applicant's history runs for between two and three years. His first six offences were punished by non-custodial terms. He took nothing in the way of any deterrent effect from these non-custodial punishments because his next 13 convictions attracted cumulative custodial time of just under four and a half years. Fifth, on any reasonable view, the Applicant's offending has consumed an undue amount of the community's policing, judicial sentencing and custodial resources. Each of these five cumulative effects of the Applicant's repeated offending now volubly speak to the very serious nature of his unlawful conduct in this country.
2. Having regard to the four paragraphs of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction which are relevant to assessment of the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct,[25] I am comfortably satisfied that the totality of the Applicant's unlawful conduct in Australia can readily be found to be very serious. I so find.

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

1. Sub-paragraph 8.1.2(1) provides that in considering the risk to the Australian community, a decision-maker 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 of it being repeated may be unacceptable.
2. Sub-paragraph 8.1.2(2) provides that in considering the risk to the Australian community, a decision-maker must have regard to the three following factors on a cumulative basis:

(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:

i. information and evidence on the risk of the non-citizen re-offending; and

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

(c) where consideration is being given to whether to refuse to grant a visa to the non-citizen - whether the risk of harm may be affected by the duration and purpose of the non-citizen's intended stay, the type of visa being applied for, and whether there are strong or compassionate reasons for granting a short stay visa.

Sub-paragraph 8.1.2(2)(a): the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community were the Applicant to engage in further criminal or other serious conduct

1. Were the Applicant to again offend in the realm of proliferating the supply of illicit substances into our community, very serious physical, psychological and quite conceivably catastrophic harm would be variously experienced by illicit drug users, their families and loved ones. The community would be materially impacted resulting from consumption of its policing, judicial sentencing and custodial resources. Were he to repeat his property offending and fraudulent / dishonest conduct, lawful owners would experience material harm arising from their loss of use and enjoyment of property they have lawfully acquired.
2. Were he to re-commit his shocking traffic history, it is beyond argument that other road users would be exposed to physical, psychological and, quite conceivably, catastrophic harm. It follows that recommission of his past offending now grounds a finding that the nature of the harm to individuals and the Australian community would range from psychological, physical, material and, quite realistically, catastrophic harm. I will also find, pursuant to sub-paragraph 8.1.2(1) of the Direction, that the harm resulting from any recommission of his past unlawful conduct is so serious that any risk of its recommission should now be found to be unacceptable.

Sub-paragraph 8.2.2(b): the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct

1. I have earlier recounted the Applicant's return to a pattern of offending in October 2024 barely three months after appearing before Judge Hindman for sentencing on 10 July 2024. What is interesting is that when he appeared at the sentencing hearing on 10 July 2024, the Applicant had already spent 388 days in pre-sentence custody from 18 June 2023 until 9 July 2024. Taking into account this time in pre-sentence custody, Judge Hindman immediately released him on 10 July 2024. But the Applicant took nothing from the 388 days he spent in pre-sentence custody or his immediate release because within three months of that immediate release, he re-offended.
2. For the purposes of assessing the nature and seriousness of a non-citizen's conduct, paragraph 8.1.1(1)(h) of the Direction looks at whether a non-citizen has re-offended since being formally warned, or since otherwise being made aware, in writing, about the consequences of further offending in terms of the non-citizen's migration status. Most commonly in these character matters, "...formally warned...in writing..." usually involves a non-citizen receiving written notification from the Respondent's Department about their offending and how it may affect their ongoing capacity to retain a visa to remain in this country.
3. Here, the Applicant has not received any such warning from the Respondent's Department and, out of an abundance of caution, I have not invoked the terms of paragraph 8.1.1(1)(h) of the Direction in my assessment of the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct. However, certain of the learned Justice Hindman's sentencing remarks made on 10 July 2024 are, I think, relevant to an assessment of the Applicant's recidivist risk. Her Honour told the Applicant (who, to repeat, was legally represented at this sentencing hearing): "It has also been drawn to my attention that you are not an Australian citizen and are on a temporary visa. This conviction may have consequences for your visa status, and that is a matter that I can pay some attention to as well in the sentence."[26] [My emphasis]

1. As mentioned, the Applicant was immediately released from custody on 10 July 2024 (due to his having served 388 days in pre-sentence custody) but was only in the community for three months when he committed two further offences for which he was sentenced on 30 January 2025. Despite being told that his already-committed conduct may adversely affect his visa status to remain here, the Applicant proceeded to commit further offences. Somewhat bizarrely, the Applicant told the instant hearing that he knew if he re-offended after 10 July 2024, there may have been adverse consequences for his visa status to remain here. This blatant disregard for the impact of further offending on his right to hold an Australian visa does not bode well for his recidivist prospects if now returned to the community.

1. There is a dearth of independent clinical opinion about recidivist risk before the Tribunal. Contemporaneous with his sentencing event on 10 July 2024, Queensland Corrective Services ("QCS") produced a "Risk of Re-Offending Assessment" which rated the Applicant's recidivist risk at "8" with the scores from this testing methodology ranging from 1 to 22, with 22 being the highest risk of re-offending.[27] There is a further report from QCS. It carries the title of "Information Notice Security Classification." It is a report concerned with the Applicant's security classification upon a return to custody. This report notes "You have been assessed as having a Risk of Reoffending Prison Version (RoR-PV) score of 8 which indicates you fall into the category of prisoners who pose a moderate risk of further general offending."[28] [My emphasis]
2. Several things can be said (and found) about this first report from QCS. First, the RoR-PV relates to the Applicant's recidivist risk, as assessed at 10 July 2024, contemporaneous with his sentencing hearing on that day. It is an assessment facilitative of the Applicant's release on "Probation and Parole" at that time_._ As per its label, it is a "Prison Version" assessment of the Applicant's recidivist risk as opposed to a clinical assessment. This can be seen from the "Questions" posed as "Risk Items" in the quoted table below. At the end of these three non-clinical questions, a figure of "8" is arrived at. The assessment has not involved any psychometric testing nor any analysis of the Applicant's psychological symptoms predisposing him to illicit substance abuse and consequential very serious offending:

Risk of Re-Offending Assessment - RoR-PV - 10 Jul 24

Integrated Offender Management System Page 1 of 2

Risk of Re-Offending Assessment - RoR-PV - 10 Jul 24 Created on 08 Oct 2025 01:59 PM

1. Has the offender been convicted of a Breach of Justice Order (current offence

1. Has the offender been convicted of an assault or related offences (current

Number of convictions in the past ten years (orders and prison sentences):

(Range of Scores 1 to 22: 22 being highest risk of re-offending)' [29]

1. In any event, the veracity of this RoR-PV assessment (made on 10 July 2024) should be drawn into serious question having regard to the reality of the Applicant's further offending committed three months later in October 2024. Second, the further QCS report titled "Information Notice Security Classification" is, as mentioned, an assessment of the Applicant's "...initial security classification in accordance with s12 of the Act."[30] This classification goes on to say "I have decided to classify you, [the Applicant]...a HIGH-security classification."[31] The assessment contemplates the Applicant's security classification upon his return to a prison environment as opposed to his recidivist risk profile in the general community. This is clear from the text of this assessed HIGH-security classification:

"I also gave consideration to your poor response to community supervision as evidenced by your return to custody. You were released to immediate court ordered parole on 30 July 2024 and your parole was suspended on 4 September 2024. You were returned to custody on 25 October 2024 with 51 days calculated as time at large." [32]

1. Third, the question about any value or weight allocable to these findings of the QCS must surely be answered in the negative. The first assessment appears to have no clinical basis. The second one is not predicated on any risk profile in the community but is rather about a security classification upon a return to criminal custody. In the final analysis, and perhaps most relevantly for present purposes, following his sentencing hearing on 10 July 2024, the Applicant lasted only 51 days at large in the community before he re-offended.

1. The starting point in an assessment of the state of the Applicant's reliance on illicit drugs is the sentencing remarks of Justice Hindman on 10 July 2024. Her Honour sentenced the Applicant to a head custodial term of two years and six months on the basis that his involvement in the sale of illicit drugs was to fund his own addiction. He was clearly sentenced as drug-dependant person and there cannot now be any safe finding that he has since become a recreational / social or infrequent user of illicit drugs, let alone that he has entirely overcome his past addiction. He told the instant hearing that he has been exposed to methylamphetamine from 2021 and that following his sentencing hearing on 10 July 2024, he had, by about August 2024, relapsed into a pattern using methylamphetamine and consequential offending.
2. The Applicant's rehabilitation from illicit substance abuse has been very limited. First, there is a certificate relating to his completion of the "Understanding Drug and Alcohol Abuse" course on 26 September 2025. There is little or no evidence about any extent to which completion of this course is now informative of the Applicant's recidivist risk. He completed the course a week before the instant hearing. The next scheduled date (assuming he even attends it) is a week after it.
3. Second, there is a letter dated 14 November 2025 from a counsellor attached to Anglicare confirming the Applicant "...was self-referred to Recovery Pathways, a voluntary Alcohol and Other Drug Counselling Program delivered by Anglicare Southern Queensland."[33] This letter further notes: "To date, [the Applicant] has attended one counselling session in total and on the following date: 13/11/25: **'**Initial Counselling Assessment'...[the Applicant's] next appointment has been scheduled for 28/11/25."[34] [Emphasis in original]. He initially became involved with this program a week before the instant hearing. The next scheduled date (assuming he even attends it) is a week after it. Again, what can this possibly now tell us about his recidivist risk?
4. Third, the material contains a certificate of completion dated 24 November 2023 for the Applicant's successful completion of the "(24 HOUR LISI[35]) EXPLORE PROGRAM". Again, there is little or nothing about any impact of this program on the Applicant's recidivist risk. Perhaps circumstances have displaced any evidentiary value attaching to this certificate because it was completed in November while he was in criminal custody and after which he relapsed in August 2025. The only safe finding can be that this Applicant's past issues with illicit substance abuse remain unresolved or that those issues are, at best, in the very formative stage of resolution and/or that such resolution remains a work-in-progress. Neither scenario bodes well for his recidivist risk if now returned to the community.

Is residing with the partner a protective influence?

1. The Applicant told the instant hearing that if returned to the community, he would return to residing with his partner, Ms Angel May Fish and her infant child from another relationship. I have serious misgivings about any extent to which the Applicant's co-habitation with Ms Fish could now favourably talk to his recidivist risk. In her evidence to the instant hearing, she confirmed she pleaded guilty to the commission of an offence arising from the factual circumstances of the Applicant's conviction (on 30 January 2025) for unlawful possession of motor vehicles, aircraft or vessels with intent to deprive committed on 25 October 2024.

1. The Applicant lasted just 51 days at large in the community following his immediate release on 10 July 2024 before he re-offended. He did so despite knowing of the existential threat to his visa status if he did so. The assessments of QCS are, for reasons I have particularised, not informative about the Applicant's recidivist risk if now returned to the community. Whatever rehabilitative courses he has completed were done very recently and predominantly for the purpose of impressing this Tribunal. They do not take any assessment of his recidivist risk anywhere. One of them - completed in November 2023 - purports to suggest some measure of rehabilitation from illicit substance abuse. As the evidence confirms, he relapsed in August 2024 barely a month after being sentenced in July of that year. The claimed protective factor of resuming cohabitation with his partner should, for the reason I have stated, be rejected.

1. I am satisfied that this Applicant represents an unknown and thus unacceptable risk of re-offending. The evidence concerningly confirms that little or nothing bodes well for the Applicant being able to sustain any low level of recidivist risk if now returned to the community.
2. I reach this recidivist risk finding with the Direction's dictum that the safety of the Australian community is "...the highest priority of the Australian Government"[36] at the forefront of my mind. To this finding, I will necessarily add a further element such that were the Applicant to repeat his past offending, the impact on a victim(s) would be so serious that any such risk should now be found to be unacceptable.[37] I so find.

1. The Direction also contains a reference to sub-paragraph 8.1.2(2)(c). With reference to this specific sub-paragraph, this matter does not involve a 'refusal to grant a visa to a

non-citizen'. It involves an application for the 'revocation' of a decision refusing to revoke the earlier mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's Visa. This specific paragraph is not relevant to the determination of this application.

1. With reference to the weight attributable to this Primary Consideration 1:

(a) I have found that the nature and seriousness of the totality of the Applicant's conduct to date has been very serious; > > (b) I have found that recommission of the Applicant's past offending now grounds a finding that the nature of the harm to individuals and the Australian community would range from psychological, physical, material and, quite realistically, catastrophic harm. I have also found pursuant to sub-paragraph 8.1.2(1) of the Direction, that the harm resulting from any such repeated offending is so serious that any risk of its recommission should now be found to be unacceptable; and > > (c) I have assessed the Applicant's recidivist risk as unknown and thus unacceptable upon a return to the community. In reaching this finding about recidivist risk, I have kept the Direction's dictum that the safety of the Australian community is "...the highest priority of the Australian community" at the forefront of my mind. > > * - My analysis of the material leads me to a finding that this Primary Consideration 1 confers a very heavy level of weight in favour of this Tribunal affirming the decision under review.

1. I have earlier found,[38] consistent with the mutually-held position of the parties, that this Primary Consideration 2 is not engaged by the instant facts. I will put it to one side and render it neutral for present purposes.

PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 3: THE STRENGTH, NATURE AND DURATION OF TIES TO AUSTRALIA

(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.

1. The subsequent paragraph 8.3(2) also stipulates that in the assessment of any other ties that a non-citizen may have in Australia, the decision-maker must have regard to:

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

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

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

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

Paragraph 8.3(1) Assessment of ties to immediate family members in Australia

1. The Applicant's Personal Circumstances Form ("PCF") prepared at an earlier stage of this matter is silent about immediate family members. During the closing submissions stage of the instant hearing, I sought to clarify with the Applicant the list of immediate family members I am to take into account for present purposes. As best as I understood this evidence, that list comprises the following immediate family members:
   • - his partner, the abovementioned Ms Angel Fish;
   • - her child from another relationship (thereby the Applicant's step-child), Child I;
   • - his 'father-in-law", Mr Trevor Fish;
   • - his 'mother-in-law', Ms Evelyn Fish;
   • - his adoptive parents who both reside at Mango Hill, north of Brisbane;
   • - his four brothers who also reside with the adoptive parents in Mango Hill; and
   • - his two sisters, one of whom lives in Melbourne and the other one who is a tertiary student in Brisbane.
2. The Applicant agreed that Ms Fish (his partner) has fallen out with her parents and does not see them. He further agreed that if she does not see her parents it probably means he would not seem them or otherwise not have very much to do with them. He confirmed that he speaks with his mother and his brother relatively frequently. He also confirmed that he is precluded from speaking with his father because the father has taken out respective protection orders (or equivalent) that respectively run until 14 July 2026 and 12 July 2028.[39] He further agreed that his two sisters have their own lives. It was not clear from the evidence about whether any of the Applicant's siblings have children of their own. So essentially for present purposes, the immediate family members with whom the Applicant could reasonably be expected to have some contact if returned to the community comprise Ms Fish, Child I, his adoptive parents, his four brothers and, to an extent, his two sisters and, to an even lesser extent, his in-laws (parents of Ms Fish).
3. With particular reference to Ms Fish (his partner), the evidence tells us that this relationship should be approached with caution for present purposes. It appears the Applicant and Ms Fish were initially in a romantic relationship in the middle part of last year but that it broke up when the Applicant was returned to criminal custody in October of last year. The evidence from the Applicant and Ms Fish was that their relationship was re-instated when the Applicant went into immigration detention in March of this year. I agree with the contentions of the Respondent: the relationship must be found to be in its infancy and they have surely only spent minimal time actually living together in a domestic relationship in the community.
4. In his statement, the Applicant's 'father-in-law' says 'For me [the Applicant] is a good kid, when I was in hospital, he did the brake pads on our family car for my wife because he new [sic] she comes to visit me twice a day while I was in a coma.[40] He mows my lawn a few times, watched /babysitted [sic] my kids when I asked or needed him to. Does this sound like a bad person? He's family to my wife and I and all our kids, I hope use [sic] can see what I see in him.'[41] In her statement, the Applicant's 'mother-in-law' says 'I and my husband Trevor Fish absolutely respect and love the ground this boy [the Applicant] walks on and we can't thank him enough for all the help he's given us over these years, we couldn't have asked for a better son in law...'[42] Neither of the in-laws were required by the Respondent for cross-examination purposes at the instant hearing.
5. Overall, I will find that the Applicant's ties with the nominated immediate family members comprising the individuals listed at [53] of these Reasons militate in favour of a moderately heavy level of weight in favour of the Applicant pursuant to this Primary Consideration 3. This finding is predicated on the limiting proviso that each of the people representing these immediate ties being Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have a right to remain here indefinitely.

Paragraph 8.3(2)(b) Assessment of ties to extended family and social links

1. During the closing submission phase of the instant hearing, I took the Applicant to the portion of his PCF wherein he refers to 'other relatives' he has in Australia. In particular, I asked him about the extent of his ties to the '10' uncles/aunts; '24' nieces/nephews; '22' cousins; and '2' grandparents. He agreed that his ties to these extended family members are not very close. However, he pointed out that these are people he would see on milestone days such as Christmas or Easter or special occasion days such as when someone was getting married. As best as I understood the material, none of these extended family members have provided written evidence to the instant hearing.
2. Also as best as I understood the material, there are two statements from people who could be defined as social ties of the Applicant in Australia. The first of them is from Imam Omar Khateeb whose statement is dated 19 October 2025 which appears in the material.[43] Imam Khateeb says he first met the Applicant in immigration detention in early 2025. He notes that '...What stood out immediately was the remarkable transformation he had undergone, not only in his outlook on life but in his demeanour, manners and commitment to his Islamic faith.'[44] Imam Khateeb further notes that the Applicant is '...a young man with genuine potential, a good heart and strong desire to live a righteous and meaningful life.'[45]
3. The second statement from a social contact of the Applicant is that of Ms Tanisha Biehler. Her statement is dated 19 October 2025 and appears in the material.[46] She has known the Applicant for six years and met him through a shared workplace. She notes that 'Deep in my heart I know that [the Applicant] is a good person with a huge heart. He has experienced a lot of hurt in his life that has caused him to make some poor choices...I believe that [the Applicant] is capable of living a better life once his is released and I hope that he is given a chance to better his life.'[47]
4. I am mindful that of the above-listed social ties, neither of them gave oral evidence to the instant hearing. However, neither did the Respondent require them for cross-examination. Having regard to their written evidence, I will accept that these two people representing these social ties will be adversely impacted by any removal of the Applicant to New Zealand. I can only allocate very minimal weight to the abovementioned (and very numerously claimed) extended family members. I will find that the Applicant's ties with those extended family members, but especially his ties to the two social contacts who provided written statements, do militate for the allocation of a moderately heavy level of weight in his favour pursuant to this Primary Consideration 3. This finding is predicated on the limiting proviso that each of the people representing these extended family and social ties being Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have a right to remain here indefinitely.

Paragraph 8.3(2)(a): Additional factors to take into account

1. This component of Primary Consideration 3 requires me to look at how long the Applicant has resided in Australia, taking into account the following factors:
   • whether the Applicant arrived here as a young child? [48] The Applicant arrived in Australia in January 2016 when he was 14 years old. I will find that the Applicant did not arrive here as a young child. This component of paragraph 8.3(2) does not augment the weight allocable to his ties to this country;
   • whether the Applicant began offending soon after arriving here? [49] The Applicant arrived here in January 2016. He recorded his first criminal conviction in Australia in December 2022, some seven years after his arrival. I will find that he did not begin offending soon after arriving here. Thus, the weight allocable to the Applicant for this Primary Consideration 3 cannot be impugned on the basis of him offending soon after arriving here;
   • the time the Applicant has spent contributing positively to the Australian community during his time here.[50] While in this country, the Applicant has a work history running from 2017 to 2022 that has seen him work in various jobs including as a storeman, forklift operator, as a farm worker and as a retail assistant. In terms of community involvement, the Applicant's material seems silent.[51] However, in her supportive statement, the abovementioned Ms Biehler notes the Applicant '...was great at playing Gridiron and Rugby Union and he had dreams to potentially make it a career,...'[52] I will find he has had at least some measure of community involvement. I will therefore find the Applicant has a solid work history in Australia and that he has materially contributed to this country via the taxation levied against his gross earnings. I will also find he has had some measure of community involvement. On the basis of his solid work history and his measure of community involvement, I will find that this component of paragraph 8.3(2) of the Direction affords a moderately heavy level of weight in the Applicant's favour towards a finding about the strength of his ties to Australia.
2. Accordingly, I am of the view (and I find) based on my analysis of the evidence around subparagraph 8.3(2)(a) of the Direction that:
   • sub-paragraph 8.3(2)(a): does not augment the weight allocable to the Applicant for the purposes of this Primary Consideration 3 because he did not arrive in Australia as a young child;
   • sub-paragraph 8.3(2)(a)(i): does not impugn the weight allocable to the Applicant for the purposes for this Primary Consideration 3 because he did not begin offending soon after arriving in Australia; and
   • sub-paragraph 8.3(2)(a)(ii): does assist the Applicant because of his solid employment and moderate level of community involvement in Australia.
3. Therefore, only the specific sub-paragraph 8.3(2)(a)(ii) (solid employment and moderate level of community involvement) serves to augment the weight I have already allocated to the Applicant pursuant to the earlier-applicable paragraphs comprising paragraph 8.3(1) and 8.3(2)(b) of the Direction, respectively, relating to his ties to immediate and extended family members in Australia and his social ties in Australia.

1. I have referred to the three relevant components of this Primary Consideration 3. I am of the view, after having analysed the evidence relevant to each of those three components to which the evidence applies, that the totality of that evidence points to a moderately heavy level of weight in favour of this Tribunal setting aside the decision under review.

PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 4: BEST INTERESTS OF MINOR CHILDREN IN AUSTRALIA

1. This Primary Consideration requires a decision-maker to consider what impact a decision to refuse or not revoke cancellation of a visa will have on children who are and will continue to be under the age of 18 years of age at the time of the decision.[53] The Direction further requires that the best interests of each child must be considered individually if there is more than one minor child identified.
2. In assessing the best interests of each child/ren, a decision-maker is required to take into account:[54]

(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 parties appear to be of one mind and the evidence confirms there is one relevant minor child for present purposes comprising the abovementioned Child I who is the child of Ms Fish from another relationship and the Applicant's step-son. In his most recent statement made on 17 October 2025, the Applicant says 'I now have a newborn child with my partner, and my greatest wish is to be a supportive father and role model.'[55] The Applicant has also completed (on 30 September 2025) a 'Basic Parenting Skills' course.[56] In an earlier statement (made on 14 July 2025) the Applicant says the requirements of step-fatherhood if returned to the community 'has further motivated me to transform my life and embrace my responsibilities as a parent.'[57]

Application of factors at paragraph 8.4(4) of the Direction to Child I

1. There is simply little or nothing to convince me about any significant nature, extent or duration of any relationship between Child I and the Applicant. The relationship has clearly been non-parental and while there has been little or no physical contact between the Applicant and this child, that is not to suggest he does not know this child at all. However, whatever history and traction is to be created between Child I and the Applicant is yet to occur in any fulsome sense.[58]
2. The evidence is not clear as to whether the Applicant has even met Child I and it is thus difficult to determine whether he is likely he will play any positive parental role in the future life of that Child until he attains the age of 18 years. Ms Fish seems receptive to the Applicant doing so.[59] We do not know whether Child I has been impacted by the Applicant's past conduct nor do we know the extent of any such impact were the Applicant to re-offend in future.[60] There is little to displace the presumption (and finding) that the predominant basis on which the Applicant has communicated with Child I has most probably been via telephone and / or video and that he would be able to continue this method of contact if returned to New Zealand.[61]
3. It is clear and undeniable that Ms Fish already fulfills the primary parental role for Child I.[62] Child I is too young to reliably express any view(s) about the Applicant's removal to New Zealand.[63] There is no evidence that Child I has suffered or experienced any of the adverse elements referred to in paragraphs 8.4(4)(g) and (h) of the Direction.

Allocation of weight to the best interests of Child I

1. If the Applicant were to be permanently removed to New Zealand as a result of an adverse outcome in the instant matter, I am of the view that the factors appearing at paragraph 8.4(4) of the Direction should attract the allocation of a moderate level of weight to the best interests of Child I.

1. Having regard to the assessed best interests of Child I, I will find that this Primary Consideration 4 is of overall moderate weight in favour of this Tribunal revoking the decision under review.

PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 5: EXPECTATIONS OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY

1. The expectations of the Australian community apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.[64] The Direction explains:

'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 paragraph 8.5(1) - (3) of the Direction], without independently assessing the community's expectations in the particular case.'[65]

1. Paragraph 8.5(1) of the Direction is expressed in these terms:

"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."

Has the Applicant breached the normative expectation?

1. The Applicant has clearly breached the Australian community's expectations by his record of very serious criminal offending in this country evidenced by his acts (and convictions) for very serious illicit drug offending and other offending the totality of which I have found to be very serious. I am comfortably satisfied that the Australian community, 'as a norm', expects the Australian Government not to allow this Applicant to remain in Australia.

Is the Applicant's conduct alone sufficient to breach the normative expectation?

1. The Direction also states that visa cancellation or refusal, or non-revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa, may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences are such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not be granted or continue to hold a visa. In particular, the Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they raise serious character concerns through conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, of the following kind:[66]

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

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

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

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

1. Aside from my finding about the very serious nature of the Applicant's overall conduct, he has two convictions referable to paragraph 8.5(2)(d) of the Direction. They being (1) CONTRAVENE DIRECTION OR REQUIREMENT POLICE OFFICER[67] and (2) OBSTRUCT POLICE OFFICER[68] both of which now augment a finding that the totality of this Applicant's unlawful conduct in this country has been of sufficient seriousness such that the Australian community would expect the Australian Government to refuse to set aside the mandatory cancellation of his visa.

Are there any factors modifying the Australian community's expectations?

1. The remaining question is whether there are any factors which modify the Australian community's expectations. This question is informed by the principles in paragraphs 5.2(5), (6) and (7) of the Direction. In summary these are:

a) Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa (paragraph 5.2(5)); > > b) the Australian community has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community for only a short period of time (paragraph 5.2(5)); > > c) Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance towards 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 (paragraph 5.2(6)); > > d) the nature of a 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 a visa outcome that is not adverse to the non-citizen (paragraph 5.2(7)); and > > e) the inherent nature of the non-citizen's conduct is so serious that it displaces even strong countervailing factors militating in favour of a positive visa outcome for a non-citizen even in circumstances where the non-citizen does not pose a measurable risk of harm to the Australian community (paragraph 5.2(8)).

2. In relation to sub-paragraph (a) of the immediately preceding paragraph [79], the term 'limited stay visa' is not defined in the Act. The Applicant in this case held a Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa until it was mandatorily cancelled on

28 November 2024. This visa permits a citizen of New Zealand to remain in Australia indefinitely.[69] As the Visa permitted the Applicant to remain in Australia without any limit on the duration of his stay, that Visa cannot be classified as a limited stay visa.[70] Therefore, this sub-paragraph (a) is not applicable to the Applicant. 3. In relation to sub-paragraph (b) of the abovementioned paragraph [79], the Applicant has spent about nine years in Australia since arriving here aged fourteen years. He has spent about 38 per cent of his life in this country and is currently aged 24 years. He has a solid work history in Australia and has had some measure of community involvement. He has a domestic partner and step-son with whom he will co-habit if returned to the community. Having regard to these elements, whatever participation in, and contribution to, the Australian community he may have made during his time here cannot be safely found to have been 'short'. Therefore, I will cautiously find the Australian community's tolerance is not lowered by this part of the principles in 5.2(5) of the Direction. 4. In relation to sub-paragraph (c) of the abovementioned paragraph of [79], I repeat that the Applicant arrived in Australia in January 2016 as a fourteen year old in 2016. He has spent about 38 percent of his life in Australia and he did not come here at a young age.[71] I will therefore find that the Australian community's level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by this Applicant is not raised. 5. In relation to sub-paragraph (d) of the abovementioned paragraph [79], I am of the view that the balancing exercise between (on the one hand) the harm that would be caused by the Applicant re-committing his very serious criminal offending of the same type already committed and (on the other hand), whatever countervailing considerations may work in his favour, is not necessarily a principle referable to the community's expectations for present purposes. This is because I am of the view that his offending committed in this country has been so very serious as to now dispel any applicable countervailing considerations working in his favour. 6. In relation to sub-paragraph (e) of the abovementioned paragraph [79], I am of the view that the Applicant's unlawful conduct has been so serious such as to now displace any strong countervailing considerations militating in favour of a positive visa outcome from this proceeding. I have found that the Applicant represents an unknown and thus unacceptable risk of reoffending. I have also found that if he were to re-offend, the resulting harm to the Australian community renders such a risk unacceptable.

1. Primary Consideration 5 confers a very heavy level of weight in favour of this Tribunal affirming the Decision Under Review.

Other Consideration (a): Legal consequences of the decision

1. There are a number of legal consequences possibly resulting from an adverse outcome for the Applicant from this proceeding. First, were this Tribunal to affirm the decision under review, the Applicant will be liable for removal from Australia as an unlawful non-citizen as soon as practicable.[72] Second, in such a scenario, there is the prospect of him spending a period of time in immigration detention until his removal.[73] Third, if the Applicant fails in this proceeding he will not be able to satisfy the Special Return Criteria pursuant to regulation 5001(c) to Schedule 5 of the Migration Regulations which is a precursory requirement for the grant of most visas. For practical purpose purposes, he will be permanently excluded from Australia.
2. Permanent exclusion does not engage paragraph 9.1 of the Direction and is thus not referable for my consideration for present purposes. That said, he is not precluded from applying for a protection visa.[74] He may be compelled to spend time in detention pending the outcome of any such protection visa application which could be a fourth legal consequence. Fifth, a further consequence of his permanent removal from Australia will likely cause him to experience (1) impediments upon a return and resettlement in New Zealand; and (2) his ties to this country being impacted by his removal. I will consider the former the (i.e. impediments), in my following discussion of paragraph 9.2 of the Direction. The latter (i.e. ties to Australia) I have already considered pursuant to paragraph 8.3 of the Direction.
3. I accept that each of the five abovementioned consequences could realistically result from an adverse outcome for the Applicant. I will find these legal consequences attract the allocation of moderate weight to this Other Consideration (a) in favour of revocation.

Other Consideration (b): Extent of impediments if removed

1. Paragraph 9.2 of the Direction directs a decision-maker to take into account the extent of any impediments that the non-citizen may face if removed from Australia to their home country, in establishing themselves and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country), taking into account:

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

(c) any social, medical and/or economic support available to that non-citizen in that country

1. Paragraph 9.2(1)(a): the Applicant is 24 years of age and physically in the prime of his life. His PCF discloses no physical or mental health conditions.[75] In his oral evidence to the instant hearing, he spoke of having experienced symptoms of anxiety and depression which he said fluctuated "up and down". There is vague reference to this in his PCF but not in the part of that document dealing with "Health Information."[76] Anxiety and depression are not unknown conditions in New Zealand. Whatever treatment he may need for any future manifestation of such symptoms in New Zealand will be available to him via publicly available healthcare in that country. New Zealand's public healthcare system is broadly similar to that of Australia and will be available to the Applicant to the same extent as would be available to other citizens of that country. The Applicant's age and state of health (both physical and mental) are not impediments to his return and resettlement in New Zealand.
2. Paragraph 9.2(1)(b): as best as I understood the evidence, the Applicant spent the first fourteen years of his life in American Samoa. He has only stayed overnight in New Zealand in transit to Australia and the following nine years here. While the Applicant has very minimally resided in New Zealand, he has nevertheless spent nine years here. This Tribunal (differently constituted) has found New Zealand to be 'culturally and linguistically similar to Australia.'[77] It cannot be safely said (or found) that he will face any substantial language or cultural barriers in that country. No such barriers impede his return and resettlement in New Zealand
3. Paragraph 9.2(1)(c): this sub-paragraph looks for any social, medical and/or economic support available to the Applicant in New Zealand. First, with reference to economic support, I have found the Applicant has a solid work history in Australia and there is a likelihood he would be capable of securing at least some measure of remunerative employment in New Zealand. Were he to require short to medium term financial assistance, he will be able to access the New Zealand equivalent of Centrelink / unemployment benefits (as we know it in Australia) until he secures employment in New Zealand. I am of the view that any lack of economic support in New Zealand is not an impediment to him returning to that country.
4. Second, with reference to medical support in New Zealand, it is necessary to again refer to the state of the Applicant's physical and mental health. If he were to require publicly available care and treatment for his mental health symptoms (and even any physical health symptoms) in New Zealand, he will, as I have found above, be able to access such publicly available medical support as is available to other citizens of that country. New Zealand is a country with broadly similar standards of publicly available healthcare for both physical and mental health symptoms to Australia. The question of medical support in New Zealand is not an impediment to him remaining in that country.
5. Third, with reference to social support available to him in New Zealand, it is reasonable and safe to make these findings: (1) the significant majority of the Applicant's immediate and extended family are in Australia; (2) he has never resided in New Zealand for any extended period beyond an overnight stay in transit to Australia in January 2016; (3) he does not have any contacts in New Zealand and that whatever contacts he may have are in American Samoa. I will cautiously accept that if returned to New Zealand, the Applicant will be impeded by a relative lack of social support in that country. But I am not convinced that any such impediment is insurmountable. This is so because of the support the Applicant is likely to receive through the operation of the Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Act 2015 (NZ).
6. Rather helpfully, in its SFIC, the Respondent has summarised the operational effect of this legislation. It is worth quoting that portion of the Respondent's SFIC in full:

'[66] There also appears to be a genuine prospect that the applicant would receive structured support to re-establish his life in New Zealand if returned. This is through the operation of the Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Act 2015 (NZ) (Returning Offenders Act), which is designed to facilitate the safe reintegration of "returning prisoners" into the New Zealand community. The applicant appears to meet the criteria for a determination that he is a "returning prisoner" for the purposes of s 17 of the Returning Offenders Act, in circumstances where:

[66.1] the applicant has been convicted in an overseas jurisdiction of an offence that would constitute an imprisonable offence in New Zealand;

[66.2] he has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding one year in relation to that offence; and

[66.3] he is expected to return to New Zealand within six months of his release from custody, which includes immigration detention.

[67] Should the applicant be served with a Determination Notice confirming his status as a "returning prisoner" (which appears likely given the above), he would be subject to monitoring and management by New Zealand's Community Corrections and required to comply with standard release conditions upon return. The purpose of this regime is to support safe reintegration into the New Zealand community. Under s 26(1) of the Returning Offenders Act, the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections may also apply to the Court for the imposition of special conditions. These conditions may be granted if they reduce the risk of reoffending, facilitate or promote the applicant's rehabilitation and reintegration or address the reasonable concerns of victims.

[68] Accordingly, there is a real and meaningful possibility that the applicant will receive structured assistance in restarting his life in New Zealand. While the Returning Offenders Act does not prescribe specific supports, the Department

of Corrections' publicly available information states that a "returning prisoner" would typically be:

[68.1] assigned a probation officer who provides instructions regarding reporting obligations and any standard or special conditions;

[68.2] assisted by Community Corrections staff in assessing immediate needs, applying for benefits, securing employment, and developing longer-term reintegration plans; and

[68.3**] provided support with sourcing short-term accommodation**, which must be approved by the probation officer, and alternatives will be sought if initial arrangements are deemed unsuitable.'[78]

[Emphasis in original; emphasis with underlining is my addition].

1. My findings about impediments are as follows:
   • the Applicant's age and state of physical and mental health are not impediments to him returning to New Zealand;
   • there are no substantial language or cultural barriers impeding the Applicant returning to New Zealand;
   • any lack of economic support is not an impediment to the Applicant returning to New Zealand;
   • any lack of medical support is not an impediment to the Applicant returning to New Zealand; and
   • in terms of social support in New Zealand, it is an impediment to him returning to New Zealand but is not insurmountable due to the operational effect of the Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Act 2015 (NZ).
2. Given my findings about each of the three sub-paragraphs to this paragraph 9.2 of the Direction, I am of the view that this Other Consideration (b) attracts moderate weight in favour of revocation.

Other Consideration (c): Impact on Australian business interests

1. As mentioned earlier at [7] of these Reasons, the parties agree that this Other Consideration is not relevant to the instant determination. I agree and will allocate neutral weight to it.

1. The allocation of weight to the Other Considerations in the present matter can be summarised as follows:

(a) legal consequences of the decision: is of moderate weight in favour of revocation; > > (b) extent of impediments if removed: is of moderate weight in favour of revocation; and > > (c) impact on Australian business interests: is of neutral weight.

1. Under section 501CA(4)(b) of the Act, there are two alternate conditions precedent to the exercise of the power to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa: either the Applicant must be found to pass the character test; and if not, I must be satisfied there is another reason, pursuant to the Direction, to revoke the cancellation decision. As noted (and found) previously in these Reasons, the Applicant does not pass the character test.[79]
2. In considering whether there is another reason to exercise the power afforded by section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's Visa, I have had regard to the considerations referred to in the Direction. I find as follows:
   • Primary Consideration 1: is of a very heavy level of weight in favour of affirming the Decision Under Review;
   • Primary Consideration 2: is of neutral weight;
   • Primary Consideration 3: is of a moderately heavy level of weight in favour of setting aside the decision under review;
   • Primary Consideration 4: is of a moderate level of weight in favour of setting aside the decision under review;
   • Primary Consideration 5: is of a very heavy level of weight in favour of affirming the Decision Under Review.
3. I have earlier outlined the weight attributable to each of the Other Considerations. I am of the view (and I find) that the combined respective weights I have allocated to Primary Considerations 3 and 4 together with Other Considerations (a) and (b) are comprehensively and dispositively outweighed by the combined respective very heavy weights I have allocated to Primary Considerations 1 and 5.
4. A holistic application of the considerations in the Direction therefore militates in favour of this Tribunal finding there is not another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa. The visa the Applicant seeks will be denied to him.

1. Pursuant to section 105(a) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth), the Tribunal affirms the decision made by a delegate of the Respondent dated 15 September 2025 to not revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa.

1. I certify that the preceding one hundred and four (104) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member T Tavoularis

Course Certificate - Understanding Drug and Alcohol Abuse

Character Reference from Omar Khateeb (Imam of BIDC)

Character Reference from Tanisha Biehler (Friend and Former Co-Worker)

Character Reference from Trevor Charles Fish (Partner's Father)

Character Reference from Evelyn Christine Fish (Partner's Mother)

Applicant's Email Listing Witnesses and Their Contact Details

[1] Hereinafter referred to as "the Act".

[2] Special category (Class TY)(Subclass 444) - hereinafter referred as the "visa".

[3] Harrison v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] AATA 47; (2009) 106 ALD 666 at [63].

[4] Hereinafter referred to as 'the decision under review.'

[5] Pursuant to section 501CA(4) of the Act.

[6] Direction No 110 - Visa refusal and cancellation under s501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s501CA commenced on 21 June 2024. It replaces Direction No. 99 - Visa refusal and cancellation under s501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s501CA. I will hereinafter refer to Direction 110 as "t_he Direction_."

[9] Note to reader: the Traffic History is, with respect, difficult to read in terms of trying to calculate the cumulative total periods of the Applicant's disqualification from driving. There are multiple references to periods of time in the narrative of the history but it is not clear what those stated periods relate to. To be on the safe side, I have gone to the stated periods that are preceded by the acronym "DISQ" which must surely refer to "disqualified". When you go to the stated periods preceded by "DISQ", you arrive at this cumulative period of driving disqualification of three years.

[10] Her Honour Ms Justice Hindman, Supreme Court of Queensland.

[11] Pursuant to s 9(1)(b) of the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld).

[12] R1, p 43, lines, 20-47; p 44, lines 1-20.

[13] Quoting the footnote in the original: 'Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, Illicit Drug Data Report 2020-21, p 168'.

[14] Quoting the footnote in the original: '$700 x 34.85 and $3800 x 34.85.'

[16] Bartlett v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration) [2017] AATA 1561, [43]-[45].

[17] See PNLB and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] AATA 162 at [22].

[18] Pursuant to s 433(1) of the Criminal Code Act (1899) (Qld).

[19] Pursuant to ss 408(1)(a) and (1)(b) of the Criminal Code Act (1899) (Qld).

[20] Pursuant to s 69(1) of the Criminal Code Act (1899) (Qld).

[21] Pursuant to s 408(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code Act (1899) (Qld).

[22] Pursuant to s 791(2) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld).

[23] Pursuant to s 790(1)(b) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld).

[24] Pursuant to s 33(1) of the Bail Act 1980 (Qld).

[25] They being, respectively, paragraphs 8.1.1(1)(a); (c); (e) and (f) of the Direction.

[30] R3, p 44. The "Act" referred to is the Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld).

[35] Denoting: "Low Intensity Substance Intervention."

[36] Paragraph 8.1(1) of the Direction. See also paragraph 5.2(2) of the Direction.

[37] Pursuant to Paragraph 8.1.2 of the Direction.

[40] Note to reader: in his statement, Mr Fish frankly discloses '...I've got Lymphoma and I do chemotherapy and Haemoglobin treatment every Friday at home. I was in a coma for 19 days it's been a hard road.'

[48] Paragraph 8.3(2)(a) of the Direction.

[49] Paragraph 8.3(2)(a)(i) of the Direction.

[50] Paragraph 8.3(2)(a)(ii) of the Direction.

[51] See R1, p 84, where the Applicant has not ticked the box 'Evidence of participation in the community.'

[53] Paragraphs 8.4(1) and 8.4(2) of the Direction.

[54] Paragraph 8.4(4) of the Direction.

[55] A4, p 2. Note to reader: the 'newborn' is Child I who is, of course, the child of a previous partner of Ms Fish. The Applicant is not the biological father of this child.

[58] Paragraph 8.4(4)(a) of the Direction.

[59] Paragraph 8.4(4)(b) of the Direction.

[60] Paragraph 8.4(4)(c) of the Direction.

[61] Paragraph 8.4(4)(d) of the Direction.

[62] Paragraph 8.4(4)(e) of the Direction.

[63] Paragraph 8.4(4)(f) of the Direction.

[65]Paragraph 8.5(4) of the Direction. Paragraph 8.5(4) codifies the position laid down by the Full Court of the Federal Court in FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs (2019) 272 FCR 454.

[66] Paragraph 8.5(2) of the Direction.

[67] Committed on 17 April 2023 and convicted on 10 July 2024.

[68] Committed on 7 January 2023 and convicted on 10 July 2024.

[69] Regulation 444.511 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth).

[70] Walker v Minister of Home Affairs [2020] FCA 909 at [29].

[71] This is, consistent with my finding at [62] (first dot point) and [63] (first dot point) of these Reasons.

[72] Section 198 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

[73] Section 189 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

[77] Tera Euna and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] AATA 301, [101].