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

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

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

1. Section 501(6)(a) states that a person does not pass the character test if the person has a substantial criminal record.
2. Section 501(7)(c) states that, for the purposes of the character test, a person has a substantial criminal record if the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.
3. Under section 499(1) of the Act, the Minister may give written directions to a person or body having functions or power under the Act, and a person or body must comply with any direction given by the Minster (section 499(2A)).
4. The Minister has issued Direction 110, Visa Refusal and Cancellation under section 501 and Revocation of a Mandatory Cancellation of a Visa under section 501CA (the Direction) dated 7 June 2024.
5. The Direction sets out the considerations to be taken into account when considering a request to revoke a cancellation and states a non-citizen who has had their visa cancelled under section 501(3A) may request revocation of that decision under section 501CA of the Act. Where the decision-maker considering the request is not satisfied that the non-citizen passes the character test, the decision-maker must consider whether there is another reason to revoke the cancellation given the specific circumstances of the case. The purpose of the Direction is to guide decision-makers in performing functions or exercising powers under sections 501 and 501CA of the Act.
6. Clause 5.2 of the Direction sets out the principles to provide a framework for decision making. These are:

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

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

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

(4) The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they engaged in conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, that raises serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a 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. Clause 8 of the Direction sets out the primary considerations to be taken into account:
   • 8.1 protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;
   • 8.2 whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence;
   • 8.3 the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia;
   • 8.4 the best interests of minor children in Australia;
   • 8.5 expectations of the Australian community.
2. Clause 9 of the Direction sets out other considerations to be taken into account including:
   • 9.1 Legal consequences of the decision;
   • 9.2 Extent of impediments if removed;
   • 9.3 Impact on Australian business interests.

1. The issues to be determined in this application are:
   1. Does the Applicant pass the character test as set out in section 501(6), and if not,
   2. Whether there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked under section 501CA(4), having regard to the Minister's Direction No. 110.

1. It is not in dispute that the Applicant does not pass the character test.
2. On the evidence before the Tribunal, including the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission Check Results Report[1] and His Honour Judge Wraight's Reasons for Sentence[2], the Tribunal finds that on 25 July 2024 the Applicant pleaded guilty to one charge of attempt to possess a commercial quantity of an unlawfully imported border-controlled drug, namely methamphetamine, and was sentenced to five years imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and six months. His Honour indicated that if the Applicant had not pleaded guilty, His Honour would have sentenced the Applicant to a period of seven years imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years.
3. The Tribunal finds the Applicant has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more, therefore he has a substantial criminal record as defined in s 501(7)(c) of the Act.
4. The Tribunal finds that because the Applicant has a substantial criminal record, he does not pass the character test as set out in s 501(6)(a) of the Act.

Whether there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked under section 501CA(4), having regard to the Minister's Direction No. 110.

1. The Tribunal has considered each consideration set out in the Direction in turn, keeping in mind the principles in clause 5.2 of the Direction.

8.1 The protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct

1. This consideration requires the Tribunal to keep in mind that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government, and that the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens.
2. The Tribunal must 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.
3. Clause 8.1(2) of the Direction requires decision-makers to:

a) Consider the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's conduct to date; and > > b) the risk to the Australian community, should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.

1. This primary consideration involves taking into account the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's past offending. Clause 8.1.1(1) states that when considering the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's criminal offending and other conduct to date, the Tribunal must have regard to a number of factors, including the types of crimes or conduct viewed very seriously, and those considered to be serious, by the Australian Government and the Australian community.
2. In his sentencing remarks His Honour Judge Wraight stated that the offence of attempting to possess a commercial quantity of an unlawfully imported border-controlled drug is viewed as a very serious offence. This is reflected in the maximum penalty of life imprisonment. His Honour accepted that while the Applicant may not have had actual knowledge or belief that the package contained border-controlled drugs, the Applicant must have at least been reckless to the fact that it did. His Honour considered that by his plea, the Applicant was aware of a substantial risk that the package contained drugs and having regard to that circumstance, it was unjustifiable to take the risk that he ultimately took.
3. In relation to the nature of the offending conduct, His Honour accepted that the Applicant was essentially a courier. His Honour noted that it was well established the role of a courier is indispensable, and drug networks can only continue to exist if people like the Applicant are willing to take the risk and undertake that task. The Applicant's role was integral to the operation because the Applicant had arranged to travel from his home in New South Wales to Victoria by car to pick up the imported consignment. The Applicant liaised with one of the organisers via a secure messaging platform as to the collection and payment. The Applicant communicated with the undercover operative in relation to the specifics of the pickup. The Applicant adopted a method of identification by using a five dollar note with a specific serial number together with a $10,000 cash placement. At the time of the arrest the Applicant attempted to drive away from the scene with the consignment having completed the transaction. His Honour accepted that these factors supported the proposition that the Applicant's role was an important one involving a degree of planning and knowledge on his part.
4. As to the amount of methamphetamine the Applicant attempted to possess, His Honour noted the prosecution case was that the consignment contained at least 750g of pure methamphetamine. That was based on the forensic testing carried out in the United States when the consignment was initially detected. The Applicant's plea was accepted before the prosecution had obtained further evidence as to the total quantity of methamphetamine in the consignment. Thus, the prosecution only alleged the threshold amount of commercial quantity. The precise purity of the whole consignment is not known, however the sample taken from one bottle of 20 bottles contained 48% pure methamphetamine.
5. As to the Applicant's motivation, His Honour accepted, based on the Applicant's own admission in a letter he wrote to the court, that the Applicant wanted to make some "quick money". It was submitted to the court that the Applicant was only to receive $2000, some of which the Applicant gave to his companion who travelled with him and some of which went to expenses. As such, it was submitted that the Applicant stood to only receive a small amount of money for what was a substantial risk. According to His Honour, while there was some debate at the plea hearing on this point, which was not a matter that in His Honour's view required resolution, it was clear that the Applicant's motivation was to make money from his involvement in the operation. His Honour noted that the offence to which the Applicant pleaded guilty was inherently serious. The Applicant's role was critical to enable a commercial quantity of a border-controlled drug to continue to its intended destination.
6. The Applicant's oral evidence about his offending conduct was consistent with that outlined in the sentencing remarks noted above. The Tribunal accepts His Honour's description accurately describes the Applicant's offending conduct. The Applicant told the Tribunal that at the time he was helping to support his family financially, had his own debts and felt under financial stress, so undertook the offending conduct for financial reasons.
7. As noted above, clause 8.1.1(1) of the Direction states that when considering the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's criminal offending and other conduct to date, the Tribunal must have regard to a number of factors, and without limiting the range of conduct, sets out the types of crimes or conduct viewed very seriously, and considered to be serious, by the Australian Government and the Australian community. The Tribunal has had regard to the views of the Australian Government and the Australian community as set out in the Direction.

1. Clause 8.1.1(1)(c) requires the Tribunal to have regard to the sentence imposed by the courts.
2. As noted above, on 25 July 2024 the Applicant was sentenced to five years imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and six months. His Honour indicated that if the Applicant had not pleaded guilty, His Honour would have sentenced the Applicant to a period of seven years imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years.
3. The Tribunal considers sentences of imprisonment as the most serious in the sentencing hierarchy. The Tribunal accepts the Respondent's submissions that the sentence imposed reflects the seriousness of the Applicant's conduct.

Impact of offending on any victims of offending or other conduct and their family

1. While there is no victim impact statement before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has given weight to His Honour Judge Wraight's statements that it was clear through the reference material and the letter the Applicant wrote to the court, that the Applicant had an appreciation of the serious nature of his conduct and the devastating impact methamphetamines have on the community.[3]
2. During the hearing the Applicant told the Tribunal about the programs he has completed since his incarceration. He told the Tribunal he had learned about substance use, specifically methamphetamines, and the impacts it has on people and society, the long-term effects, and how to avoid these sorts of issues again in the future.
3. On the evidence before it the Tribunal accepts that the impact caused by the distribution of an unlawfully imported border-controlled drug on individuals and the Australia community is significant.

Frequency of offending and any trend to increasing seriousness

1. The Applicant's offending conduct occurred in August 2022. The Applicant has no history of prior offending and has not reoffended after this incident. The Tribunal accepts that in these circumstances there is no frequency of offending or any trend of increasing seriousness.

1. The Tribunal accepts that in the circumstances of the case before it there is no repeated offending or cumulative effect of repeated offending.

1. There is no material before the Tribunal to suggest the Applicant has provided false or misleading information to the Department.

1. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal accepts the Applicant has not reoffended since the Applicant was notified of the Department's intention to consider refusal of the visa.

1. The offence and conduct that is the subject of this application occurred in Australia. There is no material before the Tribunal to suggest the Applicant has offended or committed criminal conduct in another country.

Conclusion 8.1.1 Nature and seriousness of the conduct

1. The Tribunal has considered the written and oral submissions of the Applicant, that his offending was not of a type viewed very seriously for the purposes of this consideration, and while the Tribunal accepts the Applicant's offending conduct is not listed in the Direction as the type of crime or conduct viewed as very serious or serious, the Tribunal also notes the Direction does not limit the range of conduct viewed as such. The Tribunal has given weight to His Honour Judge Wraight's statement that the offence of attempting to possess a commercial quantity of an unlawfully imported border-controlled drug is viewed as a very serious offence, and that the Applicant's role was an important one involving a degree of planning and knowledge on his part. The Tribunal has also given weight to the sentence imposed and the other factors noted above and has concluded that the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct is serious.

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

1. The Tribunal has had 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, the Tribunal must have regard to, cumulatively, the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct, and the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct.

Nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct

1. On the evidence before it the Tribunal accepts that should the Applicant engage in further criminal conduct the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community would be significant.

The likelihood of the Applicant engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct

1. In considering this aspect of the consideration, the Tribunal must take into account information and evidence on the risk of the Applicant reoffending; and evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since the most recent offence.

Information and evidence on the risk of the Applicant reoffending and evidence of rehabilitation

1. The Tribunal notes the Applicant entered a plea of guilty at the earliest available opportunity. His Honour Judge Wraight accepted the Applicant had expressed a measure of genuine remorse and had gained insight in relation to the serious nature of his conduct through the criminal process. His Honour considered the Applicant's prospects of rehabilitation were very positive.[4]
2. The Tribunal has given weight to the psychologist report from Daniella Kocic dated 20 December 2023 who assessed the Applicant's general risk of reoffending as low. The report noted the Applicant had no prior criminal history, and that there was no evidence of criminal attitude or orientation. There did not appear to be inherent emotional or personal factors which would increase his risks, such as impulsive behaviour, risk-taking behaviour, or self-regulation issues. Further protective factors that mitigate the risk of reoffending and improve the Applicant's prospects of rehabilitation included his attitude towards intervention, the absence of general antisocial attitudes or other criminal behaviour, and his plans to lead a prosocial life.[5]
3. The Tribunal has also given weight to the more recent medicolegal report from Dr Nathani dated 30 November 2025. Dr Nathani stated the Applicant's risk of reoffending was low. Factors that confer the low risk profile included feelings of remorse and regret, the associated psychological distress to the Applicant's family because of his offending conduct, the settlement of all his financial debts, stable future employment and income, the experience of imprisonment, and the completion of numerous courses and modules while in prison. Dr Nathani's oral evidence was consistent with his written report and confirmed his clinical opinion that the risk of the Applicant reoffending was low.
4. The Tribunal has also given weight to the Applicant's oral evidence and that of his mother and father. The Applicant's oral evidence was consistent with his written statement dated 2 April 2025 where he stated that he feels intense regret every day and has learnt so much from being imprisoned, and that he is truly sorry. In his written statement the Applicant stated that:

Being in prison has served as a significant lesson to me, forcing me to reflect on my circumstances at the time and consider how I could have handled things better. I am truly remorseful for my actions and feel intense shame and embarrassment for what I have done to my family, my actions at the time, and though there are no known victims of my offending, I understand the risk that drugs pose to the Australia community.[6]

1. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant deeply regrets his actions and was motivated to undertake his offending conduct because of financial stress. The Tribunal also accepts the Applicant's circumstances have now changed.
2. While the Tribunal accepts the Applicant may experience financial stress in the future, the Tribunal also accepts there are protective factors in place now that weigh against him reoffending. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant has learnt about the costs to himself and his family of offending through his experience with the criminal justice process and his imprisonment. The Applicant has also learnt about the impact of illicit drugs on individuals and the community from the courses he has undertaken including the Changing Gears - Drug Treatment for Men, Tuning into Respectful Relationships, Ice and Me, and RMIT's Inside Out Prison Exchange Program.[7] The Tribunal accepts the Applicant has developed insight into the risks involved in undertaking any future offending conduct and the harm such conduct can cause. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant will live with his family in Melbourne on his release and that his family have distanced themselves from the family member involved in the Applicant's previous offending conduct. The Tribunal also accepts the Applicant has a genuine offer of future employment and will have an income on his release. The Tribunal also accepts the Applicant has settled all his personal debts. The Tribunal considers these protective factors support Dr Nathani's opinion that the risk of the Applicant reoffending is low.
3. The Tribunal has given weight to the time the Applicant spent in community since his offending before he was imprisoned and accepts the applicant has not reoffended. The Tribunal has also given weight to the statements provided in support of the Applicant from his uncle, previous employer, colleagues, friends and teammates[8], noting the offending as out of character for the Applicant, and commenting on his positive character traits and commitment to his family, especially his parents and sister.
4. Given all these factors the Tribunal considers the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in further criminal or serious conduct is low.

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

1. Having considered, cumulatively, the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct would be significant, and the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct as low, and having 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, the Tribunal considers the risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct is moderate.

Conclusion 8.1 The protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct

1. Having considered the nature and seriousness of the conduct as serious, and the risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct as moderate, the Tribunal has concluded that the protection of the Australian community consideration weighs significantly in favour of not revoking the original decision and affirming the decision under review.

1. Clause 8.2(1) states the Government has serious concerns about conferring on non-citizens who engage in family violence the privilege of entering or remaining in Australia.
2. It is not in dispute that the evidence before the Tribunal does not engage this consideration, and therefore the Tribunal has concluded this consideration neither weighs for nor against revoking the original decision.

8.3 The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia

1. On the evidence before it the Tribunal accepts the Applicant arrived in Australia with his family in 2003 aged five years old. He has lived in Australia since that time, growing up and attending school in New South Wales. After leaving school the Applicant worked consistently until he was incarcerated. He has worked in the hospitality sector, and in the construction industry, and doing removal work.[9]
2. The Applicant's parents and sister have all been granted Class TY Subclass Special Category (Temporary) visas and have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely for the purposes of the Direction. The Applicant also has a grandmother as well as an uncle and two cousins who are Australian citizens.
3. The Tribunal accepts the consistent and detailed oral and written evidence of the Applicant, his mother and father in relation to their family history and circumstances. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal accepts the Applicant's father's ongoing health issues has meant he has been unable to work for some time. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant has financially contributed to support his mother, father and sister for many years and has been an important financial contributor to the family household since age 18.
4. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant's sister has an intellectual disability. She has a very close and special relationship with the Applicant. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant plans to look after his sister when his parents are no longer able to do so. Since his incarceration the Applicant continues to speak to his parents and sister daily, and they visit him on weekends. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant's immediate family has moved from Sydney to Melbourne and that has helped alleviate their cost-of-living expenses and overall financial situation. The family continues to live on the Applicant's mother's income since the Applicant was incarcerated. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant plans to live with his immediate family on release and has future employment arrangements in place. He plans to once again contribute to the family finances. While the Tribunal accepts the Applicant wishes to contribute to help support his family, the Tribunal also accepts their financial situation, and the Applicant's, is not as stressed or acute as previously experienced.
5. The Tribunal accepts the impact of the Tribunal's decision on the Applicant's immediate family members in Australia would include significant emotional distress and upset if the decision under review was affirmed and the Applicant was removed from Australia after his release from prison. The Tribunal also accepts this impact will be particularly acute for the Applicant's sister. Such a decision would also adversely affect their plans for the Applicant to continue his close relationship with his sister and their plans to live together and for him to support her into the future.
6. The Tribunal also accepts such a decision would have a financial impact on the immediate family. While the family is currently managing on the Applicant's mother's income there is an expectation the Applicant will contribute in the future, and this may not be possible if he is removed to New Zealand. While the Applicant's father's oral evidence suggested the family may move back to New Zealand if the Applicant was removed, the Applicant's earlier oral evidence raised doubts as to whether the family could afford to do so given the time they had been living away in Australia and their current circumstances. On the evidence before it, it is unclear if the Applicant's family would follow him to New Zealand should he be removed. The Tribunal has given substantial weight in the Applicant's favour based on the impact of the decision on the Applicant's immediate family in Australia.
7. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant also has a grandmother, uncle and cousins who are Australian citizens living in the Australian community. While the Applicant is not in daily contact and is not planning on living with these relatives, the Applicant has known them all his life, and the Tribunal considers these are strong, long-term family ties to the Australian community through these relatives. The Tribunal has considered the statutory declaration provided by the Applicant's uncle and accepts the Applicant worked for his uncle prior to incarceration and has an offer of future employment.[10] The Tribunal has given weight in favour of the Applicant given the strength, nature and duration of these ties to the Australian community through these ties with his extended family.
8. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant attained the position of Vice-School Captain in year 12 in 2015. The certificates and statements of attainment provided in support of the Applicant indicate he was very involved in his study and school community.[11] The Applicant competed a Diploma of Building Design and a Certificate in Architecture Design before commencing a Bachelor of Construction Management from which he withdrew when interrupted by the Covid pandemic.[12] The evidence before the Tribunal indicates the Applicant completed a number of hospitality service courses in 2016, Red Cross Australia training in 2019, and National WHS General Construction Induction Training and completed a Heavy Rigid Licences course module in 2021.[13] The written statements, photographs and receipts provided in support indicate the Applicant was involved in team sports, body building and donated to charities prior to his incarceration. His coach, teammates, work colleagues, friends and former employers have provided statements in support indicating the Applicant has long standing ties through his sport, employment and social activities.[14] The Tribunal accepts the Applicant has strong ties over many years to Australian community through his friends and team mates at school, and through his employment and social activities, as well as his team and individual sporting activities. The Tribunal has given weight in the Applicant's favour based on the strength, nature and duration of these ties to the Australian community and links to Australia citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia.
9. As noted above the Applicant has resided in Australia since he was five years old. He is now 28 years old. The offending conduct occurred in 2022, nearly twenty years after he arrived. The Tribunal has given weight to the time the Applicant has spent in Australia contributing positively to the Australian community.
10. Overall, the Tribunal considers the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia provides significant weight in favour of revoking the original decision.

8.4 Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision

1. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant's submissions that there are no minor children in Australia affected by the decision. The Tribunal has concluded that this consideration neither weighs for nor against revoking the original decision.

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, regardless of whether the Applicant poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
2. Clause 8.5(2) of the Direction sets out examples of conduct that would raise serious character concerns that the Australian community would expect that a person who undertook such conduct would not continue to hold a visa. The Applicant's offending conduct does not fall within the examples provided.
3. Nevertheless, while the Tribunal has considered the Applicant's submissions that nil weight, or only slight weight adverse to the Applicant, should be placed on this consideration, the Tribunal accepts the Respondent's submissions that clause 8.5(3) of the Direction indicates the expectations of the Australia community apply regardless of whether the Applicant poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
4. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds the Applicant has failed to obey laws while in Australia and has engaged in serious conduct by attempting to possess a commercial quantity of an unlawfully imported border-controlled drug, namely methamphetamine, in breach of the Australian community's expectations.
5. The Tribunal considers the expectations of the Australian community weighs significantly in favour of not revoking the original decision and affirming the decision under review.

1. In making a decision under s 501CA(4), the Tribunal must also take into account the following considerations.

1. The Tribunal accepts that if it affirms the decision under review the Applicant will be placed in immigration detention and will be liable for removal from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable after he is released from prison. This will mean his wish to remain in Australia with his parents and sister will not occur.
2. The Applicant is not a person who is covered by a protection finding and he has not made any claims that would attract or relate to Australia's non-refoulement obligations. Nor is the Applicant in special circumstances that would result in indefinite detention.
3. The Tribunal accepts that the legal consequence of affirming the decision means the Applicant's ability to apply for another visa would be curtailed under s 501E of the Act, and he may be subjected to indefinite exclusion from Australia by operation of the Special Return Criteria in clause 5001(c) of Schedule 5 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) if the Minister has not, acting personally, granted the Applicant a permanent visa. Affirming the decision will also adversely affect the Applicant's ability to meet the requirements of the Public Interest Criterion 4001 of Schedule 4 of the Migration Regulations 1994 in any future visa applications.
4. While the Tribunal has considered the Respondent's submissions that the Applicant's removal and indefinite exclusion are the intended purposes of the statutory scheme and therefore should be afforded neutral weight, the Tribunal is not persuaded such consequences should be ignored or given no weight just because they are intended.
5. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal considers the legal consequences of the decision provides some weight in favour of revoking the original decision.

1. Under this consideration the Tribunal must consider the extent of any impediments the Applicant may face if removed from Australia to his home country in establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country), taking into account the Applicant's age and health, whether there are any substantial language or cultural barriers; and any social, medical and or economic support available to them in that country.
2. As noted above, the Applicant is a citizen of New Zealand. He left that country with his family in 2003 aged five. His immediate family are now all living in Australia and the Tribunal accepts that while the Applicant has visited New Zealand on vacation since he moved to Australia, he has no relationship with any of his distant relatives in New Zealand, and the Tribunal accepts the Applicant has no established family, social or economic support networks in New Zealand.
3. The Applicant is now 28 years of age. The Tribunal considers the Applicant's age is not an impediment in establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards if removed to New Zealand.
4. In relation to the Applicant's health the oral evidence and written report of Dr Nathani indicates there was a previous diagnosis of an adjustment disorder but in Dr Nathani clinical opinion the features and symptoms have not persisted. Dr Nathani opined that the risk of relapse into an adjustment disorder is in the moderate range if the Applicant was removed to New Zealand. On questioning, Dr Nathani indicated that treatment for an adjustment disorder would be similar in New Zealand to that provided in Australia.[15]
5. The Tribunal accepts there is a risk the Applicant will relapse into an adjustment disorder if removed to New Zealand, and therefore this is to some extent an impediment the Applicant may face in establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards. Nevertheless, the Tribunal also accepts the Applicant would have access to similar treatment in New Zealand to that available in Australia, and while the Tribunal accepts this provides some weight in favour of the Applicant, the Tribunal considers this impediment is not insurmountable.
6. The Tribunal notes Dr Nathani's opinion that the risk of suicide remains the same (in the low range) if the Applicant remains in Australia or is removed to New Zealand, and the Tribunal considers this is not an impediment in establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards if removed to New Zealand.
7. As noted above, the Applicant left New Zealand with his immediate family at the age of five. The Tribunal notes the Applicant grew up and went to school in Australia, and while the Tribunal accepts that means the Applicant did not have the experience of being educated in New Zealand, given the shared language and many similar cultural characteristics, the Tribunal does not accept there are any substantial language or cultural barriers for the Applicant in establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards if he is removed from Australia to New Zealand.
8. During the hearing the Applicant and his parents did raise concerns about the cost of living in New Zealand and if the Applicant would be able to obtain employment in New Zealand.
9. During the hearing the Respondent referred the Applicant to the Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Act 2015 (NZ) noting he appeared to meet the criteria for assistance under this scheme which is designed to support the safe reintegration into the New Zealand community. While it is not possible for the Tribunal to make a conclusive finding in relation to the Applicant's eligibility or access to this support scheme, the Tribunal does accept that as a New Zealand citizen the Applicant would have the same access to government unemployment, public health and housing support as other New Zealand citizens in similar circumstances.
10. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant has completed secondary school and some post-secondary education and courses. He has significant work experience in Australia which has provided him with transferable skills. While the Tribunal accept the Applicant will face some social and economic impediments and will need to seek employment in New Zealand, the Tribunal does not accept he will be unable to do so, and the Tribunal does not consider these impediments are insurmountable.
11. Having considered all the evidence before it, the Tribunal accepts the Applicant is likely to face some emotional, health, social and economic impediments in establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards if removed from Australia to New Zealand. While the Tribunal does not consider these impediments insurmountable, they do provide some weight in the Applicant's favour.
12. In these circumstances the Tribunal considers the extent of impediments if removed provides some weight in favour of revoking the original decision.

1. The Tribunal must consider any impact on Australian business interests if the Applicant is not allowed to remain in Australia, noting that an employment link would generally only be given weight where the decision under s 501 would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project, or delivery of an important service in Australia.
2. While the Tribunal notes the Applicant's previous work in Australia and the information set out in his uncle's statutory declaration in relation to previous and future employment,[16] the evidence before the Tribunal does not indicate the Applicant's future employment would fall into the category contemplated by this clause, and the Tribunal has concluded this consideration provides neither weight for nor against revoking the original decision.

1. As noted above, the Applicant does not pass the character test and the Tribunal must decide whether there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked under section 501CA(4), having regard to the Minister's Direction No. 110.
2. The Tribunal has given appropriate weight to information from independent and authoritative sources and has also taken the principles set out in 5.2 of the Direction into consideration.
3. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal considers the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct weighs significantly in favour of not revoking the original decision and affirming the decision under review. The family violence consideration attracts neither weight for nor against revoking the original decision. The strength, nature and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia provides significant weight in favour of revoking the original decision. The best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision consideration does not provide weight either for nor against revoking the original decision. The expectations of the Australian community weighs significantly in favour of not revoking the original decision and affirming the decision under review. Of the other considerations, the legal consequences of the decision provides some weight in favour of revoking the original decision, and the extent of the impediments to the Applicant if removed also provides some weight in favour of revoking the original decision. The impact on Australian business interests neither weighs for nor against revoking the original decision.
4. The Applicant has lived in the Australian community for most of his life from a young age and therefore a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by the Applicant may be afforded, and the Tribunal considers there is significant weight in favour of revoking the original decision. Nevertheless, there is also significant weight in favour of not revoking the original decision and affirming the decision under review. Having weighed up all the factors in compliance with the Direction and as part of a single evaluation, giving greater weight to consideration 8.1 protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct from the other primary considerations, and greater weight to the other primary considerations than the other considerations, and taking into account all the principles set out in 5.2 of the Direction, the Tribunal finds the considerations in favour of revoking the original decision are outweighed by the considerations in favour of not revoking the original decision and affirming the decision under review.
5. Therefore the Tribunal is not satisfied there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked under section 501CA(4), having regard to the Direction.

1. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

Solicitor for the Applicant: Mr Nikolic Carina Ford Lawyers

Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms McClenanhan Clayton UTZ