1. The Applicant departed Australia and arrived in New Zealand, on 10 September 2017, then 20 years old, on a resident class visa, after receiving an offer of a job, which required him to receive parcels of cigarettes: HB38, HB263, and HB471. He was paid $1,000 per week to do so, being double his wages working in a restaurant at that time: HB263. In his oral evidence at the hearing, the Applicant admitted to accepting this job offer for financial gain. He said that, at the time, he did not know he could go to prison for cigarette importation, but knew it was a 'grey area'. The Applicant also told the Tribunal that his flight to, and accommodation in New Zealand, were paid for.
2. In a document tiled 'Personal Statement Regarding My Past Offences and Current Rehabilitation,' dated 3 August 2025, the Applicant describes the above offending as follows:

When I was still very young, I accepted a job offer to go to New Zealand for work. I was promised $1,000 per week, which, for someone from a poor background and with a difficult family relationship, seemed like a chance to change my life. I was told my role would be to receive parcels of cigarettes. At the time, I had no idea this was illegal. I lacked awareness of the law, had no guidance, and made a decision based on desperation and naivety.

After arriving in New Zealand, I quickly realised that things were not as I had been told. A large quantity of cigarettes had already been seized by customs, and the people who brought me in asked me to go to the post office to track parcels and pay customs duties using my own identity. I had no understanding of how their operation worked, and being young and inexperienced, I was unable to make sound judgments. I was eventually charged in connection with this matter.

At the time, my legal aid lawyer told me that I could go to trial, since I genuinely did not understand the nature of the offences. However, because my role was considered relatively minor, he advised me that pleading guilty might allow me to return home sooner. I was frightened, had no support, and simply wanted to end the ordeal, so I chose to plead guilty and move on: HB94.

1. The Applicant was charged in New Zealand in connection with the above conduct and, on 8 February 2018, he pleaded guilty in the Auckland District Court to:

(i) Two counts of using altered or reproduced documents with intent to deceive, obtaining by deception over $1,000;

(ii) Two counts of defrauding the revenue of Customs;

(iii) Possession or custody of uncustomed goods or prohibited imports and, purchases, sales, exchange etc, of uncustomed goods or prohibited imports: HB40 and HB471.

1. On 22 March 2018, the Applicant was sentenced in the Auckland District Court to two years and six months imprisonment for the above convictions: HB40. As a result of his criminal convictions, the Applicant's New Zealand resident class visa was cancelled and, on 15 October 2018, he was issued with a 'Deportation Order', under s 175 of the Immigration Act 2009 (NZ), and deported from New Zealand to Hong Kong on 4 December 2018: HB38-HB39 and HB471.

1. On 31 January 2019, the Applicant arrived in Australia (aged 22 years old) as the holder of a UD601 (Tourist Visa), granted offshore and valid until 11 February 2019: HB216. The Applicant did not declare his New Zealand criminal convictions on either his Incoming Passenger Card (HB234) or his application for a Resident Return Visa, dated 8 February 2019 (HB177-HB184) or, later, on his application for a protection visa, dated 15 May 2025: HB185-HB214.
2. On 11 February 2019, the Applicant was granted a Resident Return Visa onshore, which was valid until 4 December 2024, being the visa that is the subject of this review application: HB216.
3. On 28 March 2022, the Applicant was convicted of, and sentenced in the District Court of New South Wales, for the following offences:

(i) Drive motor vehicle while licence suspended; licence disqualified for 5 months;

(ii) Not stop at stop line at red light; fine of $600; and

(iii) Knowing supply of psychoactive substance for human consumption; fine of $700: HB36.

1. The circumstances of the above offending are that on 28 May 2021 the police pulled the Applicant over in a Hyundai hire car because he ran through a red light in Haymarket, New South Wales. The police discovered that the Applicant held a NSW Learner Drivers Permit which was suspended. When asked, in cross-examination, why he knowingly drove the car without a licence, the Applicant's response was that he chose to drive because he was running 'late to get to Centrelink.'
2. The NSW police report of the incident, dated 28 May 202, records that during their enquiries regarding the traffic matters:

...Police noticed several cardboard boxes sitting in the Hyundai's boot and back seat which displayed representations of nitrous oxide canisters, along with a large quantity of party balloons. Police were aware that nitrous oxide is used recreationally as a psychoactive substance by releasing the gas from the cannister into a balloon or plastic bag and then inhaled. Police asked the [Applicant] why he had the cannisters in his possession and he said "To take to a party." Police are aware that nitrous oxide is regularly used alongside other illegal party drugs and considering the mass of them within the hire car (which are also regularly used by drug suppliers), they established reasonable suspicion and conducted a search of the Hyundai and located 7 individual boxes containing a total of 3840 disposable cannisters and 12 larger refillable canisters. Once police concluded, the [Applicant] was cautioned and questioned regarding the cannisters. The [Applicant] reiterated to Police that his intention was to take the cannisters to a party and share them among the guests. Police asked the [Applicant] what he and the other party goers would be using the canisters for and he told them that they inhaled them and got a "really quick high." Police seized the boxes of nitrous oxide cannisters, arrested the [Applicant] and conveyed him to Day St Police Station where he was introduced [to] the custody manager, read his rights...and offered the opportunity to be interviewed which he declined: HB495.

1. In August 2021, the Applicant became involved in a undercover police operation, known as 'Strike Force Ermine', initiated by the NSW Police Force Organised Crime Squad to target the supply of heroin in Sydney: HB61. On 23 November 2021, the Applicant was arrested, because of his involvement in this undercover police operation, in which the Applicant offered to supply an undercover police officer with 700 grams of heroin for the price of $180,000: HB42. The Applicant has remained in custody since his arrest in November 2021.
2. The sentencing judge described the Applicant's involvement in the undercover police operation, which led to the Applicant's arrest, as follows:

...Police commenced an investigation into heroin supply in Sydney. A controlled operation commenced on 6 August 2021...The undercover officer began to communicate with an offender named "Andrew". It is not alleged this was the offender.

These communications led to a meeting between the undercover officer and the co-offender Yao. The undercover officer asked Yao when the 'New H' was due in. Yao later told the officer he had it, and they arranged to meet for a sale.

They continued to communicate. The officer asked to meet Yao's "Boss". Yao told the officer "His manager" can come next time. Yao and the officer arranged to meet on 23 September 2021. Yao picked up the [Applicant] from his home and they drove to meet the officer.

The three men met at a hotel in Bankstown. Yao introduced the offender as his "Boss". The officer asked how the [Applicant] and Yao "Fit in." The [Applicant] responded "He is one of my boys." The officer asked if the [Applicant] was the man he needed to talk to and the [Applicant] responded "Yeah, I'm the leader of my generation."

The [Applicant] and the officer continued to discuss the supply of 700 grams of heroin. The Officer asked the [Applicant] how much they had, and the [Applicant] said "We have a lot," but said they did it "One this time"...

They continued to discuss the arrangements for the supply. The [Applicant] told the officer he would send someone to count the money, and another to "Bring the stuff." They continued to discuss the money. The officer asked whether it was "185" and the [Applicant] said "180. Yeah, we drop it to 180."

They continued to discuss where the supply would occur. The supply was later called off. Police stopped Yao on 17 October 2021. The [Applicant] and his brother were in Yao's car. Police suspected the car or its occupants may have drugs. They asked the [Applicant] if there was anything belonging him in the car, and he directed them to a plastic bag in the footwell which contained $150,000 cash. He told the police he got it from a friend.

[The Applicant] was taken to the police station where he participated in an interview. He told police then he had exchanged the money for "Business." The [Applicant] was arrested on 23 November 2021: HB41-HB42.

1. When asked in cross-examination at the hearing why he agreed with his close friend Yao, who introduced him to the drug syndicate though his connections (made whilst working as a receptionist in a brothel), to be referred to as Yao's 'boss' (i.e. higher ranking than Yao), the Applicant's response was that Yao did not want to be the 'boss' because his English was not as good as his own and because of the risk involved. The Applicant described the words he used in his conversation with the undercover police officer as 'bluffing' and based on what he had seen in movies. The Applicant also told the Tribunal that he would have been paid around $5,000 to $10,000 for his role in supplying the heroin.
2. On 21 November 2024, the Applicant was convicted of the following offences:

(i) Deal with property proceeds of crime of more than $100,000; and

(ii) Supply prohibited drug of greater than commercial quantity: HB36.

1. For the offence of supply prohibited drug of greater than commercial quantity, the Applicant was sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 5 years and 4 months: HB36. The sentencing judge characterised the Applicant's involvement in the supply of prohibited drugs (i.e. heroin) as follows:

...The drug was never supplied and thus disseminated into the community, but it had the capacity to cause significant harm. The quantity to be supplied was 700 grams. This is above the middle of the range for commercial quantities of the drug concerned, spanning 250 grams to 1 kilogram.

The offence must have been committed for financial gain, but there is no evidence as the reward the offender anticipated for it. He was part of a syndicate. It appears he was neither at its top nor bottom. He conveyed to the syndicate he had the capacity to supply greater quantities. He negotiated the transaction with the undercover officer. He canvassed further supply in the future. His role in the negotiations with the undercover officer reflects some decision-making responsibility, but not complete authority: HB43-HB43.

1. The circumstances surrounding the deal with property proceeds of crime of more than $100,000 offence, are described in the NSW police report, dated 8 October 2021, as follows:

...The [Applicant] was submitted to a person search, where three mobile phones (1 x Samsung and 2 x iPhone) were located on his person and within his red bum bag which he was wearing at the time...Police asked the [Applicant] if there was any property within the vehicle that belonged to him, to which the [Applicant] stated 'Yes'. The [Applicant] returned to the front passenger seat of the vehicle where he picked up a yellow grocery bag, containing two small cardboard boxes with Asian writing on them. When asked if they belonged to him the [Applicant] stated 'Yes.' Police subsequently submitted these items to a search, locating numerous bundles of Australian currency ($50 notes), bundled together with elastic bands. Police immediately placed the [Applicant] under arrest in relation to the proceeds of crime...[and he was] conveyed to the Hornsby Police station. The co-accused [i.e. the Applicant's brother] gave police his Mobile phone password where police located, We Chat messages in Chinese, discussing exchanging $100,000 to yen and negotiating the exchange rate. The [Applicant] participated in an electronically recorded interview. The accused gave the version, he picked up the cash from an unnamed mate. He stated he was exchanging the Australian currency for Yen: HB498.

1. In his oral evidence at the hearing, the Applicant described the circumstances behind the proceeds of crime offence as follows. He was approached virtually by a childhood friend from Hong Kong who asked him to exchange AUD$150,000 into Japanese yen and then return the exchanged funds to his friend in Hong Kong. In return, he would receive 2-3% of the funds exchanged (i.e. up to a maximum of AUD$45,000). The Applicant said that when he agreed to do this, he was 'focusing on making money.'
2. Therefore, at around the same time the Applicant had commenced engaging with a drug syndicate to supply heroin (for financial gain), he was also involved in arranging a proceeds of crime money exchange, exchanging AUD to Japanese yen (for financial gain).

1. On 4 December 2024, the Applicant's Resident Return Visa was mandatorily cancelled pursuant to s 501(3A) of the Migration Act on the basis the Applicant had a 'substantial criminal record' because he had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more because on 21 November 2024 he had been convicted of Supply prohibited drug >= commercial quantity in the District Court of New South Wales: HB137-HB143.
2. The Applicant was not notified of the cancellation until 12 December 2024.
3. On 8 January 2025, the Applicant requested revocation of the visa cancellation decision: HB71-HB74.
4. On 17 January 2025, the Applicant was released from criminal custody and detained under s 189 of the Migration Act. He remains in immigration detention.
5. On 21 August 2025, a delegate of the Minister found that the power under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act, to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's Resident Return Visa (under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act) was not enlivened, and, on 25 August 2025, notified the Applicant of their decision not to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant's Resident Return Visa (Non-revocation Decision): HB21-HB33.
6. On 1 September 2025, the Applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the Non-revocation Decision: HB4-HB18.
7. Pursuant to s 500(6L) of the Migration Act, the Tribunal is required to make a decision on the Applicant's review application within 84 days of the day after the Applicant was notified of the decision, which occurred on 25 August 2025, or the decision of the delegate of the Minister will be taken to be affirmed. The '84th day' in this review application falls on 17 November 2025.

1. The issues for consideration by the Tribunal are:

(a) whether the Applicant passes the 'character test,' as defined in s 501(6) of the Migration Act; and, if not, > > (b) whether there is 'another reason' why the Visa Cancellation Decision should be revoked under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act, having regard to the considerations prescribed by Direction No 110 - Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (Direction 110).

1. Section 501CA of the Migration Act relevantly provides:

(1) This section applies if the Minister makes a decision (the original decision) under subsection 501(3A) (person serving sentence of imprisonment) to cancel a visa that has been granted to a person. > > ... > > (4) The Minister may revoke the original decision if: > > (a) the person makes representations in accordance with the invitation; and > > (b) the Minister is satisfied: > > (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. The 'character test' is defined in s 501(6) of the Migration Act. Relevantly, a person will not pass the character test if they have a 'substantial criminal record': s 501(6)(a) of the Migration Act.
2. The phrase 'substantial criminal record' is defined in s 501(7) of the Act and includes circumstances where a person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more: s 501(7)(c) of the Migration Act.
3. Pursuant to s 501(3A)(a)(i) and (b) of the Migration Act, the Minister must cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if the Minister is satisfied that the person does not pass the 'character test', because they have a 'substantial criminal record', as defined in s 501(7)(c) of the Migration Act, and is serving a sentence of imprisonment, on a full-time basis in a custodial institution, for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State, or a Territory. That is, failure of the 'character test,' in s 501(6) of the Migration Act, arises as a matter of law.[2]

1. When a visa is mandatorily cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act, the Minister must:

(a) give the person concerned written notice of the decision which sets out the original decision: s 501CA(3)(a)(i) of the Migration Act; > > (b) give the person concerned particulars of the relevant information: s 501CA(3)(a)(ii) of the Migration Act; and > > (c) invite the person to make representations to the Minister regarding the revocation of the original decision: s 501CA(3)(b) of the Migration Act.

2. Under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act, the Minister may revoke the original (visa cancellation) decision if:

(a) representations have been made by the applicant in accordance with an invitation to make such representations about revocation of the cancellation: s 501CA(4)(a) of the Act; and > > (b) the Minister is satisfied that: > > > (i) the person passes the 'character test' in s 501(6) of the Migration Act: s 501CA(4)(b)(i) of the Migration Act; or, if not, > > > > (ii) there is 'another reason' why the original decision should be revoked: s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act.

3. A decision under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act (i.e. to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen's visa) involves an assessment and evaluation of the factors for and against revoking the original decision.[3]
4. The Tribunal is required to undertake a 'weighing and balancing' exercise, weighing up the relevant considerations in Direction 110 and the Applicant's representations against one another to come to the correct or preferable decision.[4]
5. The Tribunal (decision-maker) must then ask itself whether it is satisfied that there is 'another reason' to revoke the visa cancellation.[5] In Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs (2022) 275 CLR 582 (Plaintiff M1/2021) at [22], the High Court described s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act as conferring 'a wide discretionary power' to revoke the mandatory cancellation if the decision-maker (here, the Tribunal on review of a delegate's decision) is satisfied there is 'another reason' why the cancellation should be revoked. In Plaintiff M1/2021, the majority held (at [22]) that the assessment of whether there is, in fact, 'another reason' is to be undertaken by reference to the representations made by the Applicant.[6]

1. A decision under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act, whether there is 'another reason' to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a visa, must be made in accordance with any written directions under the Migration Act: s 499(2A) of the Migration Act.
2. Relevantly, the Tribunal must comply with Direction 110 in considering a request for revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act, providing a legislative constraint on the Tribunal's process of reasoning.[7] However, as stated by the Full Court in Singh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 46; (2023) 296 FCR 582 at [23] and [81], the principles enunciated by Brennan J in Drake (No 2), and subsequent cases concerning the Tribunal's ability to depart from governmental policy, remain applicable.[8]

1. The eight 'Principles' listed in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110 provide the framework within which decision-makers should approach their task of deciding whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen's visa under s 501CA of the Migration Act.
2. The eight 'Principles' listed in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110 are as follows:

1. Australia has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia. Being able to come to or remain in Australia is a privilege Australia confers on non­citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law-abiding, will respect important institutions, such as Australia's law enforcement framework, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community. 2. The safety of the Australian Community is the highest priority of the Australian Government. 3. Non-citizens who engage or have engaged in criminal or other serious conduct should expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the privilege of staying in, Australia. 4. The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they engaged in conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, that raises serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community. 5. Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, or by other non-citizens who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only for a short period of time. 6. With respect to decisions to refuse, cancel, and revoke cancellation of a visa, Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age. 7. Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the non-citizens' conduct, or 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 the Australian community.

1. Informed by the eight 'Principles' in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110, the Tribunal (decision-maker) must take into account the five 'primary considerations' in section 8 of Part 2 of Direction 110, in deciding whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a visa under s 501CA(4) of the Act.
2. The five 'primary considerations', in section 8 of Part 2 of Direction 110, are:

(a) protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct: paragraph 8.1 of Direction 110; > > (b) whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence: paragraph 8.2 of Direction 110; > > (c) the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia: paragraph 8.3 of Direction 110; > > (d) the best interests of minor children in Australia: paragraph 8.4 of Direction 110; and > > (e) expectations of the Australian community: paragraph 8.5 of Direction 110.

1. Informed by the eight 'Principles' in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110, the Tribunal (decision-maker) must also take into account the three 'other considerations', in paragraph 9 of Part 2 of Direction 110, insofar as they are relevant.
2. The three 'other considerations', in paragraph 9 of Part 2 of Direction 110, include, but are not limited to, the:

(a) legal consequences of the decision under s 501 or s 501CA of the Migration Act: paragraph 9.1 of Direction 110; > > (b) extent of impediments if removed: paragraph 9.2 of Direction 110; and > > (c) impact on Australian business interests: paragraph 9.3 of Direction 110.

1. Section 7 of Part 2 of Direction 110 provides:

(1) In applying the considerations (both primary and other), information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight.

(2) The primary consideration at 8.1....(protection of the Australian community) is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations. Otherwise, primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than other considerations.

(3) One or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.

(emphasis added)

1. On 4 December 2024, the Applicant was notified of the mandatory cancellation of his Resident Return Visa 'by hand', which is the method prescribed by reg 2.55(3)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Migration Regulations): HB137-HB143. The Applicant was taken to have received the notice when it was handed to him: reg 2.55(5) of the Migration Regulations.
2. Regulation 2.52(2)(b) of the Migration Regulations prescribes that any representations seeking revocation of a mandatory visa cancellation must be made to the Minister within 28 days after the person is given notice of the cancellation. On 8 January 2025, the Applicant made representations seeking revocation of the mandatory cancellation of hid Resident Return Visa, being within the prescribed 28-day period: HB75-HB98. Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant made representations to the Minister in accordance with the invitation, as required by s 501CA(4)(a) of the Migration Act.

1. It is not in dispute, and the Tribunal accepts based on the evidence before it, that the Applicant does not pass the 'character test,' because of the operation of s 501(6)(a) of the Migration Act, as he has a 'substantial criminal record', as defined in s 501(7)(c) of the Migration Act. This is because, on 21 November 2024, the Applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of five years and four months for the offence of supplying a commercial quantity of prohibited drugs (i.e. heroin): HB36.

1. It follows that the sole issue to be decided by the Tribunal is whether there is 'another reason' why the decision to mandatorily cancel the Applicant's visa should be revoked:

s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act. 2. This involves an evaluative process requiring the Tribunal to examine factors for and against revoking the cancellation, and an assessment and evaluation of those factors leading to the formation of a view as to whether the cancellation should be revoked.[9] 3. For the following reasons, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is 'another reason' why the decision to mandatorily cancel the Applicant's visa should be revoked. In reaching its decision, the Tribunal, informed by the eight 'Principles' in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110, has, as set out below, 'taken into account':

(a) the five 'primary considerations' (in section 8 of Part 2 to Direction 110); and > > (b) the three 'other considerations' (in section 9 of Part 2 to Direction 110).

FIRST PRIMARY CONSIDERATION: PROTECTION OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL OR OTHER SERIOUS CONDUCT (PARAGRAPH 8.1 OF DIRECTION 110)

Safety of the Australian community is the highest priority

1. In applying paragraph 8.1 of Direction 110, the Tribunal must be informed by the eight 'Principles' set out in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110 and outlined at [23] above.
2. Paragraph 8.1(1) of Direction 110 states:

When considering protection of the Australian community, decision-makers should keep in mind that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government. To that end, the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. In this respect, decision-makers should have particular regard to the principle that entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, will respect important institutions, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community. > > (emphasis added)

3. The safety of the Australian community as being the highest 'priority' is also stated as a 'priority' in the 'Principle' in paragraph 5.2(2) of Direction 110.
4. Direction 110 was made on 7 June 2024 and commenced on 21 June 2024. It replaced Direction 99 which did not contain the principle that 'the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government'. The safety of the Australian community as being the highest 'priority' of the Australian Government, and in the application of Direction 110 by decision-makers, is reflected in the media release, published on 7 June 2024 by the Minister, Hon Andrew Giles MP (who authored both Directions 99 and 110), announcing Direction 110 as follows:[10]

Today, I have signed Ministerial Direction 110, a new, revised Direction to strengthen the consideration of community safety in Australia's migration system. > > Since coming to office, the Government has refused and cancelled a large number of visas on character grounds in the interests of community safety. > > However, it is clear the AAT has made a number of decisions independently of Government that do not reflect the Government's intent or meet community expectations. > > Since the beginning of last week, I have cancelled 40 visas in the national interest. > > Today, we take the next step in strengthening our cancellation system to better reflect community expectations. > > Ministerial Direction 110 is guided by two key principles; the protection of the Australian community and common sense. > > This new revised Direction makes crystal clear that the Government expects the protection of the Australian community be given greater weight in visa decisions. > > .... > > The revised Direction makes it clear that the safety of the Australian community is the Government's highest priority - and includes this as a key principle of the decision-making framework. > > .... > > Ministerial Direction 110 is an important step in ensuring that our migration system works in our national interest, and visa decisions are in line with common sense and the safety of Australians. > > Community safety is and always will be our Government's highest priority. > > (emphasis added)

5. Accordingly, the phrase 'safety of the Australian community,' in the 'Principle' in paragraph 5.2(2) of Direction 110 and the first 'primary consideration' in paragraph 8.1(1) of Direction 110 (Protection of the Australian community) is directed at the 'risk' posed by a non-citizen to the safety of the Australian nation should they be granted a visa. It is not directed at the potential consequences for a segment of the Australian community (such as the non-citizen's family members) should the visa not be granted or restored. The Tribunal must assess whether a non-citizen's continued presence in Australia would 'be opposed to the safety and welfare of the nation.'[11]

1. Paragraph 8.1(2) of Direction 110 states that, when considering the Protection of the Australian community, decision-makers must consider the:

(a) nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's conduct to date: paragraph 8.1.1 of Direction 110; and > > (b) risk to the Australian community, should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct: paragraph 8.1.2 of Direction 110.

2. For the following reasons, the Tribunal considers that the first 'primary consideration' (Protection of the Australian community) weighs heavily against revocation.

Nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct to date (paragraph 8.1.1 of Direction 110)

1. Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a) of Direction 110 provides:

a) without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered very serious, the types of crimes or conduct described below are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian community: > > i. violent and/or sexual crimes; > > ii. crimes of a violent and/or sexual nature against women or children;

1. acts of family violence, regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed;

1. The fact that the Applicant's drug and driving offences do not specifically fall within the range of conduct that paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a) of Direction 110 states 'may' be considered 'very serious,' does not exclude them from being 'very serious', for the purpose of paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a) of Direction 110. This much is obvious from the use of the words 'without limiting the range of conduct' at the commencement of paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a) of Direction 110. That is, conduct which may be considered as 'very serious', for the purpose of paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a) of Direction 110 is not exhaustive. Further, a majority of the Full Court recently held that the Tribunal is not bound by the expressed views as to the 'seriousness' of certain conduct found within paragraph 8.1.1(a) and (b) of Direction 110 and, instead, the Tribunal is required to assess, for itself, the 'nature and seriousness' of a non-citizen's conduct to date and the weight that should be attributed to this consideration.[12]
2. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant's overall offending history is 'very serious' for the purpose of paragraph 8.1.1(a) of Direction 110.[13]
3. In particular, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant's conviction, on 21 November 2024, for the supply of a commercial quantity of heroin, which resulted in a sentence to a significant term of imprisonment (i.e. five years and four months), is 'very serious'. This conviction was the result of the Applicant's deliberate engagement in a heroin selling syndicate, in which he had 'some decision-making authority', being conduct he engaged in for financial gain: HB43. The Applicant's evidence at the hearing was that this was his first and only involvement with the drug syndicate. However, this is difficult to accept for several reasons. First, it is unclear how the Applicant, who was introduced to the drug syndicate by his close friend Yao, became Yao's 'boss'. Second, it is unclear how the Applicant managed to establish himself in such a significant position for the supply of a significant amount of drugs in his alleged first ever involvement with the drug syndicate. Third, the sentencing judge accepted that the Applicant's seniority in the drug syndicate was somewhere in the middle with some 'decision making' capacity.
4. At around the same time, the Applicant was associated with an entirely separate illegal enterprise involving the exchange of AUD$150,000 cash into Japanese yen for which he would receive profit of one to three percent of the amount exchanged.
5. The Applicant's driving offences are also relevant to a consideration of the first primary consideration, 'Protection of the Australian community', in paragraph 8.1 of Direction 110. The Tribunal has repeatedly observed the seriousness of driving offences.[14] The Applicant's driving offences demonstrate a disregard for Australian law and the safety of the Australian community, which is 'the highest priority of the Australian Government': paragraph 8.1 of Direction 110.

1. On 21 May 2021, the Applicant was given strict conditional bail conditions in relation to his drug related charges. One of those bail conditions was that the Applicant report every Saturday between 8.00am and 8.00pm to the Redfern Police Station. On Saturday 26 June 2021 and Saturday 3 July 2021, the Applicant failed to report to the Redfern Police Station in accordance with his bail conditions. At about 10.00pm on Tuesday 6 July 2021, the Applicant attended the Redfern Police Station to report on bail. A check was conducted on the Applicant, the result being the Applicant is 'wanted' for breach of bail. Police activated their body-worn camera and 'cautioned' the Applicant. When the police asked the Applicant why he had failed to report in accordance with his bail conditions for the previous two weeks, the Applicant replied that he had been very busy with his study and 'forgot'. The police explained to the Applicant that he was on conditional bail for a serious offence and they did not accept the excuse he gave for non-compliance. As a result, the police issued the Applicant with a Field Court Attendance Notice for breach of bail: HB494. The NSW police report of this incident, dated 6 July 2021, states:

Police feel that the [Applicant] has a complete disregard to his bail conditions: HB494.

1. At 10.24pm (i.e. outside bail reporting hours of 8.00am to 8.00pm) on Saturday 11 September 2021, the Applicant attended the Redfern Police Station to report on bail. A check was conducted on the Applicant, the result being that Applicant breached bail by being late to report. When police asked the Applicant why he had failed to report in accordance with his bail conditions (i.e. between 8.00am and 8.00pm), the Applicant replied that he 'was asleep': HB493. The NSW police report of this incident, dated 11 September 2021, states:

Police conducted further checks on the [Applicant] which showed that the [Applicant] has previously been charged for breaching his bail on the 6th of July 2021 and has been warned about reporting late on 24th July, 21st August, and 28th August 2021. Police explained to the [Applicant] that he is on conditional bail for a serious offence and the excuse he gave for non-compliance was not accepted by the police. The [Applicant] was issued with a Field Court Attendance Notice...for breach of bail, to be heard on the next court date with his substantive charges. Police feel that the [Applicant] has a complete disregard to his bail conditions: HB493.

1. In his oral evidence at the hearing, the Applicant said that he understood the importance of complying with his bail conditions, and specifically reporting to the police weekly, but because of the amount of cannabis he was consuming at that time, he could not 'remember what day it was'. The Tribunal considers that the Applicant's continuing breach of bail conditions, relating to 'very serious' offences, and, in circumstances he was 'cautioned' by the police and issued with notices for breach of bail, demonstrates a blatant disregard for Australian law and lack of insight into the seriousness of his offending.

1. Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(c) of Direction 110 provides that in considering the nature and 'seriousness' of the Applicant's criminal offending to date, the Tribunal must have regard to 'the sentence imposed by the courts for a crime or crimes', noting that, when reviewing the Minister's decision whether there is 'another reason' to revoke a mandatory visa cancellation, the Tribunal may not impugn or 'go behind' either the conviction or the sentence.[15] Where a court has sentenced an offender to a term of custodial imprisonment, this should be viewed as a reflection of the objective 'seriousness' of the offences involved: paragraph 8.1.1(1)(c) of Direction 110.
2. The seriousness of the Applicant's drug offending is reflected by the sentence imposed by the Court, being a term of imprisonment of 5 years and 6 months: paragraph 8.1.1(1)(c) of Direction 110. Importantly, it does not appear from the sentencing judge's remarks that the sentencing judge was aware of the Applicant's New Zealand convictions. The Tribunal draws an inference that the Applicant deliberately chose not to disclose his New Zealand convictions to the sentencing judge because his sentence may have been greater if this information was made available to the sentencing judge at the time.

Frequency of offending and trend of increasing seriousness

1. The Applicant's offending has escalated in seriousness from his cigarette smuggling offences in New Zealand to his 'very serious' driving and drug offending in Australia: paragraph 8.1.1(1)(e) of Direction 110.
2. The similarities between the Applicant's 2018 New Zealand cigarette importation convictions and his 2024 Australian drug convictions represents a pattern of behaviour, namely that he has intentionally participated in organised criminal activity for financial gain: paragraph 8.1.1(1)(e) of Direction 110. This behaviour is inconsistent with the expectation, as set out in the 'Principle' in paragraph 5.2(1) of Direction 110, that non-citizens are law-abiding and will respect important Australian institutions, such as Australia's law enforcement framework.

1. The Tribunal considers that the cumulative effect of the Applicant's repeated offending is 'very serious,' and has resulted in significant use of police and court resources: paragraph 8.1.1(1)(f) of Direction 110. As stated above, the frequency and nature of the Applicant's offending demonstrate a continuing disregard for the laws of Australia and the safety of the Australian community, which is 'the highest priority of the Australian government': paragraph 8.1(1) of Direction 110.

1. The fact that the Applicant continued to offend, after being convicted of serious offences in New Zealand and being sentenced to not an insignificant term of imprisonment in New Zealand (i.e. two years and six months imprisonment), having served approximately 14 months of imprisonment in New Zealand before being deported to Hong Kong, reduces the weight given to the Applicant's claims of his recidivism. It can be inferred that, as a result of the Applicant's visa cancellation and deportation experience in New Zealand, he was aware that he could be deported from Australia if he were to commit criminal offences here as a non-citizen. The Applicant was aware that criminal offending could result in a non-citizen's visa being cancelled and deportation, when his friend from the Intensive English Centre was arrested and deported for drug (MDMA) related offences in 2020, after being sentenced to 14 months imprisonment: HB59. Despite this knowledge, the Applicant continued to offend.
2. The Tribunal also notes the Applicant's conduct in not declaring his New Zealand criminal history in his Incoming Passenger Card to Australia or in his Resident Return Visa application: HB177-HB 184 and HB234. The Applicant states the following in relation to this conduct:

...I acknowledge that I did not fully declare my New Zealand criminal history. This omission was not due to my intention to deceive or disrespect the authorities, but rather a mistake driven by fear - fear of being rejected and of being separated from my family once again. I accept full responsibility for this mistake: HB94.

1. The Tribunal does not accept, based on the overall evidence before it, that this was a 'mistake driven by fear', but, rather, considers it a deliberate attempt by the Applicant to circumvent Australian border security and demonstrates a blatant disregard for Australian law: paragraph 8.1 of Direction 110. The Applicant has a history of not disclosing the truth when he knows he should.

Conclusion: Nature and seriousness of the conduct (paragraph 8.1.1 of Direction 110)

1. For the above reasons, and as informed by the 'Principles' in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110, the Tribunal considers the 'nature and seriousness' of the Applicant's criminal conduct to date to be 'very serious': paragraph 8.1.1 of Direction 110. The nature of the Applicant's conduct is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations are insufficient to justify the revocation of the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's Resident Return Visa: paragraphs 5.2(7) and (8) of Direction 110.
2. For the above reasons, the Tribunal considers that the 'nature and seriousness' of the Applicant's criminal offending to date weighs heavily against revocation.

Risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct (paragraph 8.1.2 of Direction 110)

1. The Tribunal must also consider the 'risk' to the Australian community, should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct: paragraph 8.1.2 of Direction 110. Some conduct, and the harm that would be caused, if repeated, is so serious that any risk it may be repeated may be 'unacceptable': paragraph 8.1.2(1) of Direction 110.
2. In assessing the 'risk' posed by the non-citizen to the Australian community, the Tribunal must have 'regard to', cumulatively:

(a) the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct: paragraph 8.1.2(2)(a) of Direction 110; and > > (b) the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in further criminal or serious conduct, taking into account: > > > (i) information and evidence on the risk of the Applicant reoffending; and > > > > (ii) evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community, if any, since his most recent offence: paragraph 8.1.2(2)(b) of Direction 110.

3. The concept of 'risk' and whether it is 'unacceptable', for the purpose of paragraph 8.1.2(1) of Direction 110, is not the same thing as the 'likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct', for the purpose of paragraph 8.1.2(2) of Direction 110.[16]
4. Direction 110 directs the Tribunal's 'risk' assessment by expressly stating that, informed by the 'Principles' in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110, the:

(a) Australian Government is committed to 'protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens': paragraph 8.1(1) of Direction 110; > > (b) Australian Government views that certain types of conduct may be considered by it and the Australian community as 'very serious' and 'serious': paragraph 8.1.1(1) of Direction 110; and the > > (c) Australian Government's view is that 'the Australian community's tolerance of any further risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases': paragraph 8.1.2(1) of Direction 110.

5. In Tanielu v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCAFC 673; (2014) 225 FCR 424, Justice Mortimer (as her Honour then was) said (at [103]):

It is well established that, where the harm which might be caused by future conduct is particularly serious, a lesser likelihood of the conduct occurring may be required for the risk to be identified at a level requiring a particular decision to be made. It is also well established that the likelihood of a person engaging in conduct in the future is affected by both static and dynamic factors: that is, factors which can be assessed objectively against statistical models to predict the risk category a person falls into, and dynamic factors personal to an individual which may moderate or exacerbate the risk the person otherwise could be said to pose. Those factors might include family support, alcohol and drug abuse patterns, employment and the like. > > (emphasis added)

6. Accordingly, the 'risk' referred to in the balancing exercise contemplated by Direction 110 is not just 'any' risk that a non-citizen may 'commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct', but is aimed at the Tribunal's assessment of the nature and degree of harm said to exist in the circumstances of the Applicant's case. There is no statutory constraint on the way the Tribunal is to assess that risk, other than the requirement for the Tribunal to adopt a rational and probative approach to the assessment.[17]

Nature of the harm to individuals and the Australian community

1. As stated above, the sentencing judge noted that whilst the heroin 'was never supplied and thus disseminated into the community, [...] it had the capacity to cause significant harm': HB42-HB43.
2. Having regard to the widely recognised downstream community impacts of commercial drug dealing, any future offending by the Applicant, of a similar nature, could expose the Australian community to significant physical, financial and psychological harm. Such harm is so 'very serious', that any risk that it may be repeated is unacceptable to the Australian community: paragraph 8.1.2(1) of Direction 110.
3. It is widely accepted that methylamphetamine not only harms users but is also damaging to the Australian community more broadly. It is common knowledge that methylamphetamine is 'the worst of the worst' in terms of drugs and causes a great deal of damage in the community to people who use it and to people who come across people who use it. A publicly available report, produced by Australian Border Force[18] (ABF Report), notes that methylamphetamine 'has a strong link to crime - particularly property and violent crime, including domestic violence': ABF Report at p 6. According to the ABF Report, in 2013 to 2014, the estimated social cost of methylamphetamine was estimated to be over $5 billion: ABF Report at p 6.
4. In Tahuriorangi and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] AATA 2158 at [51]-[54], the Tribunal commented on the nature of potential future harm to the Australian community, involved in the sale of dangerous drugs, as follows:

This Applicant had a significant involvement in the trafficking and supply of dangerous drugs. The consumption of such substances may cause catastrophic harm to individual users. However, there are other and perhaps slightly less obvious deleterious effects of this unlawful activity. As is now well-known, addicted individual users of these substances all too often resort to committing crimes themselves in order to raise sufficient funds to meet their habit. > > As well, there is a quantifiable cost to the community both in terms of an increased imposition on (1) the public health system to cope with the physical and psychological consequences of these substances in our community; and (2) resources to be allocated to law enforcement agencies to detect and apprehend the wrongdoers and the justice system to hear and adjudicate offences arising from this activity. > > It is clear that any return or resumption by the Applicant to his previous drug offending conduct would represent a quite significant risk of physical and psychological harm to members of the Australian community. > > ... given the serious nature of the Applicant's prior offending, were he to reoffend, the nature of the harm he could cause to either individuals or the Australian community more generally, is plainly serious and includes the risk of injury or death.

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

1. For the following reasons, the Tribunal considers that the evidence demonstrates that the Applicant is, overall, at a 'medium' risk of reoffending.
2. In the Corrective Services NSW 'Pre-release report', dated 6 January 2025, the Applicant was assessed at a 'Medium risk of reoffending according to the Level of Service Inventory - Revised (LSI-R)': HB53 and HB54. However, as submitted by the Respondent, the reliability of that assessment is undermined where it is apparent that the writers (Naomi Burden, Community Corrections Officer, Long Bay Parole Unit and Sarah Molinia, Team Leader, Long Bay Parole Unit) were not aware of the Applicant's previous convictions in New Zealand: HB508 at [38].
3. The psychological report of forensic psychologist, Emma Hubner, dated 16 October 2024, which was prepared for the purpose of the Applicant's sentencing in November 2024 (Hubner Report), does not expressly opine on the level of the Applicant's risk of recidivism, but emphasises that treatment of the Applicant's underlying mental health conditions and psychosocial personality traits is crucial to his recovery and rehabilitation: HB64-HB68. The evidence shows that the Applicant is yet to fully engage with the recommended treatments.
4. The sentencing judge similarly noted the relevance of treatment of the Applicant's underlying mental health conditions as being relevant to his rehabilitation, as follows:

His mental condition is also relevant to his rehabilitation. The psychologist noted he required psychological intervention for it. The psychologist considered he had accepted responsibility for his actions, though showed limited understanding of their effects.

His prospects of rehabilitation appear reasonable, and the likelihood of his reoffending relatively low...

...Promotion of rehabilitation warrants weight, as he retains prospects of it but needs assistance to fulfil them: HB45.

1. However, as contended by the Respondent, the sentencing remarks and the Hubner Report must be considered in a context where the Applicant's criminal history in New Zealand was not a matter to which the sentencing judge or the author of the Hubner Report were aware: HB508-HB509 at [39]. The Tribunal considers that where those who have previously assessed, or opined on, the Applicant's risk of recidivism and prospects of rehabilitation, without a complete picture of the Applicant's criminal history, those assessments or opinions must, necessarily, understate the Applicant's risk of reoffending.
2. As reported in the Hubner Report, the Applicant was aware, soon after arriving in Australia at the age of 15, that drug-related offending may result in the cancellation of his visa and his deportation to Hong Kong. When the Applicant attended an Intensive English Centre in Beverly Hills a few years after arriving in Australia, he met, and became close friends with, a small group of other Asian immigrants whom he initially played video games with and later began to experiment with alcohol and cannabis with. One of those friends was arrested for a drug-related (MDMA) offence for which he was fined AUD$800, jailed for 14 months, and subsequently deported to mainland China in 2020: HB59 and the Applicant's oral evidence at hearing. Despite knowing this, the Applicant went on to offend, showing a disregard for Australian law and the safety of the Australian community: paragraph 8.1(1) of Direction 110.
3. The evidence before the Tribunal is that the Applicant has voluntarily engaged with the following programs whilst incarcerated:

(i) five sessions of The Addiction Support Program, between 18 October 2022 and 27 October 2022: HB90; and

(ii) 'Health Survival Tips' in May 2024, April 2023, and February 2022: HB52.

1. The Addiction Support Program consists of 20 sessions aiming to help 'identify and increases strengths that support lifestyle choices free of addiction': HB90. As stated above, the Applicant has completed only five of 20 available sessions in the program.
2. The Applicant has been prescribed with the mood stabiliser 'Avanza' (15 mg daily) and, in his oral evidence at the hearing, the Applicant confirmed that he continues to take 'Avanza' daily and that it has improved his mental health. In this regard, the Hubner Report states:
   1. Mr So's current mental health is a significant concern. Following a traumatic incident in 2023, where he was allegedly [sexually] assaulted by a fellow inmate, he reported experiencing persistent symptoms of depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation. As a result of this incident, he has been diagnosed with depression and he currently reported symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) on the MCMI-III. He has been prescribed Avanza (15 mg daily), a mood stabiliser, which he reports has improved his mental health symptoms. However, he continues to struggle with feelings of worthlessness and the lingering effects of past traumas, indicating a need for ongoing psychological support.

1. Since he was assaulted in prison in 2023 (aged 26), the Applicant has taken mood stabilising medication, Avanza (15 mg), and seen a psychologist or mental health nurse about once a month. However, it is of concern to the Tribunal that there is a lack of evidence that the Applicant has commenced addressing the underlying mental health conditions and psychosocial personality traits which contributed to his offending, nor is there anything in the nature of a 'tailored intervention plan that addresses both his psychological needs and substance use issues' which was described, in the Hubner Report, as 'essential for facilitating his recovery and reintegration into society': HB66 at [42].
2. The Hubner Report states:
   1. There is a relevant causal nexus between Mr So's mental health conditions and the commission of his offences. His struggles with low self-worth, compounded by substance abuse, likely influenced his decision-making and perception of the consequences of his actions...

1. For Mr So's rehabilitation, comprehensive psychological support is essential. This includes access to mental health services that can address both his depressive symptoms and substance abuse issues...: HB65.

1. Although the Hubner Report and the sentencing remarks state that the Applicant's underlying mental health conditions and psychosocial personality traits contributed to his offending, it is important to bear in mind that the Applicant engaged in the offending, in New Zealand and Australia, for financial gain. There is nothing to suggest if similar circumstances arose again (i.e. financial hardship) the Applicant would not reoffend.
2. The Applicant has also provided an (expert) 'Psychological Assessment Report', by Dr Lorraine Sheridan, Psychologist, with forensic endorsement, dated 1 October 2025 (Dr Sheridan's Report). Dr Sheridan's Report is relevant, in particular, to the Tribunal's assessment of the Applicant's 'risk' to the Australian community. The key points, on the Applicant's 'risk' to the Australian community, in Dr Sheridan's Report, are, in summary, as follows:
   • Having assessed the static risk factors (HB269 at [43]), the dynamic risk factors (HB269 at [44]) and the protective factors (HB269 at [45]), Dr Sheridan assessed the Applicant as being a 'medium' risk of reoffending: HB269 at [46]. However, Dr Sheridan assesses the Applicant's risk as low to moderate with 'appropriate supervision and support': HB271 at [53]. According to Dr Sheridan:
     1. ...The comprehensive community corrections plan outlined in the NSW Justice pre-release report addresses the primary risk factors while building on established protective factors. If this plan were followed, then Mr So's risk would likely shift from medium to low: HB271.
   • The Applicant has unmet treatment needs and requires an extensive support program on release to continue his rehabilitation. Dr Sheridan recommends the following treatment:
     • - Comprehensive assessment for ADHD and autism spectrum traits to inform appropriate support strategies and potential accommodations;
     • - Trauma-informed Therapy: Specialised treatment for complex trauma including childhood abuse and prison sexual assault, utilising evidence-based approaches such as trauma-focused Cognitive Behavioural Therapy or Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing.
     • - Psychiatric Medication Management: Continue current Mirtazapine prescription with regular review; consider assessment for ADHD medication if formally diagnosed.
     • - Substance Use Monitoring: Regular drug testing and engagement with Odyssey House or similar specialised addiction services to maintain abstinence.
     • - Family Therapy: Support for the family system including his mother's mental health needs and stepfather's role as primary support person.
     • - Social Skills Training: Addressing interpersonal vulnerabilities that contributed to his exploitation by others.
     • - Financial Counselling: Education about budgeting, debt management, and avoiding future financial crises: HB270 at [50].
   • Dr Sheridan states that the Applicant's 'neurodevelopmental profile, combined with his trauma history, necessitates ongoing structured support and therapeutic intervention': HB271 at [54]. Dr Sheridan further states:

...Formal assessment and diagnostic clarification of his ADHD and autism spectrum features would provide Mr So with important self-understanding regarding his lifelong difficulties with social communication, sensory activities, executive functioning, and impulse regulation. This awareness would enhance his capacity to identify triggers, implement appropriate accommodations, and engage more effectively with support services tailored to his neurological differences, thereby strengthening his rehabilitation trajectory: HB271 at [54].

• Dr Sheridan observes that there is no evidence that the Applicant has put into place, or even approached, any of the protective factors outlined in the NSW Justice pre-release report (namely, seeking an assessment from Odyssey House, enrolling in EQUIPS or engaging in any ongoing psychological support with Corrections oversight): HB271 at [56].
• The ability to withstand pressures in the community, including financial and social pressures, is untested, and he has succumbed to these pressures twice in the past. In this regard, Dr Sheridan opines:
  1. It is my opinion that the primary risk scenario involves future financial crisis combine with a loss of protective factors, potentially leading to renewed involvement with organised crime networks for income generation: HB269 at [47].

1. Three days before the first day of the hearing (on 6 November 2025), the Applicant provided the Tribunal with a letter from Bruce Chen, AOD Treatment Worker, Odyssey House NSW Community Programs, dated 3 November 2025, stating that the Applicant was assessed on 3 November 2025 and will engage in the non-residential individual Alcohol and Other Drugs counselling program at Odyssey House NSW Community Programs 'which will commence upon [his] release into the community': Exhibit 2. Whilst the Tribunal acknowledges that this represents a positive step by the Applicant towards seeking recommended and appropriate treatment for his underlying mental health issues, its sincerity is undermined by the fact that the Applicant was only assessed by Odyssey House NSW several days before the hearing and he is yet to commence the program.
2. In Dr Sheridan's Report, Dr Sheridan states:
   1. It is my view that Mr So's prognosis for continued rehabilitation is favourable if he remains in Australia with appropriate support systems...

1. From a clinical perspective, removal to Hong Kong presents several concerns for Mr So's rehabilitation and mental health stability....removal would result in a loss of established treatment supports, separation from his primary family network, and transfer to Hong Kong's different mental health infrastructure.
2. Australia provides important protective factors including specialised mental health services, strong family support networks, employment opportunities in construction/gardening sectors, and the comprehensive community supervision framework outlined in the NSW Justice pre-release report: HB271.
3. As contended by the Respondent, the relevant enquiry for the Tribunal is what 'risk' the Applicant poses to the Australian community: HB561 at [6]. It is not relevant to the Tribunal's considerations whether he would be of any greater 'risk' of reoffending if he were to return to Hong Kong.[19] The above factors, referred to in Dr Sheridan's Report, are more relevant to the 'Other consideration' in paragraph 9.2(1) of Direction 110, namely 'Extent of impediments if removed' and are considered under that heading below.
4. The question whether the Applicant genuinely intends to engage in therapy or rehabilitation in the community is an open one. He has not engaged with Narcotics Anonymous or Alcoholics Anonymous programs, as recommended. He has shown very little initiative in finding programmes. His evidence, under cross-examination, was that he intended to go to Odyssey House NSW if released into the community and to take his mother to Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous, but did not mention any other therapy or intervention he would undertake if released into the community. He was dismissive of the possibility of family therapy. He has never sought out treatments or therapies when previously in the community, even after his New Zealand convictions and 14-month period of incarceration.
5. Further, as contended by the Respondent, the Tribunal considers the Applicant's family ought not be considered a protective factor regarding 'risk' when they were available to him at the time he offended: HB510 at [48]. Importantly, the Applicant's brother was involved in the offending (HB42) and his mother has Major Depressive Disorder with mood congruent psychotic features, an Anxiety Disorder NOS, and Alcohol Use Disorder (HB134), which in circumstances where the Applicant himself has previous addiction issues, is likely to heighten risk.
6. In her oral evidence at the hearing, the Applicant's mother said that the Applicant will live with her and the Applicant's step-father at their studio apartment in Bondi Junction and sleep on a sofa bed, at least until the expiry of his parole. When asked in cross-examination whether she was still drinking alcohol, the Applicant's mother's response was 'yes', that she consumed about one bottle of red wine each night to put her to sleep, as that was the only thing that worked. However, she noted that, if the Applicant is released and lived with her and the Applicant's step-father, she would abstain from drinking alcohol altogether. Based on the evidence before the Tribunal, this seems doubtful, and if he were to live with his mother, if he is released, he will be exposed to alcohol and his risk of reoffending will increase. The Applicant's mother has said that she will support him to attend therapy, but has not taken any concrete steps to seek out and participate in therapeutic programs herself. In his oral evidence at the hearing, the Applicant said that being exposed to his mother drinking again could be a 'big problem' for him because when his mother drinks, she is 'more critical' of him, which has had a negative psychological impact upon him in the past. In her oral evidence at the hearing, forensic psychologist Dr Sheridan accepted that the Applicant's relationship with his mother would be a 'source of pressure and conflict' for him.
7. There is no evidence of the Applicant taking any drugs or alcohol since his incarceration. However, whilst incarcerated, the Applicant has been living in a controlled environment with the threat of drug testing and loss of employment if he were caught taking drugs.
8. Another concern to the Tribunal is that the Applicant's statements of remorse lack detail and genuine insight into his offending.
9. The Applicant has provided four personal statements which contain statements of remorse, dated 2 January 2025 (2 January 2025 Personal Statement) (HB91-HB92), 15 May 2025 (15 May 2025 Personal Statement) (HB93), 3 August 2025 (3 August 2025 Personal Statement) (HB94-HB95) and 24 September 2025 (24 September 2025 Personal Statement) (HB236-HB255).
10. In the 2 January 2025 Personal Statement, the Applicant states (in part):

...I totally accept and respect the law, and I realise I have done wrong.

The reason for my offending was that I fell in with some friends who were a bad influence. I developed a gambling addiction. I incurred a lot of debt and became desperate, which slowly led me to this offending. I never actually associated with people who used heroin. It was just a money making opportunity for me.

I have served 40 months imprisonment...My time in prison has allowed me to reflect on my actions and reorientate my life...I spent a lot of time I the library, reading many books and gaining life management/changing skills. Whilst [in] gaol I completed The Addiction Support Program for my gambling addiction.

I am now thankful I was caught - it prevented me heading further down the wrong path. I realise now who my real friends are and how foolish I was. I have learnt a valuable lesson from this ordeal and will not go down this wrong path again.

In prison I developed a strong disgust for drugs, seeing first-hand how it destroyed the lives and dreams of so many people. This has motivated me to [exercise] and get fit...

I am sincerely apologetic and remorseful for what I have done. I was young, naïve and reckless...:HB91-HB92.

1. In the 15 May 2025 Personal Statement, the Applicant states (in part):

Firstly, I would like to apologise for the time and resources wasted by courts and NSW Police.

Secondly, I would like to apologise to everyone who lives in the community. I have let them and myself down. I am sincerely apologetic and remorseful for my foolish actions.

1. In the 3 August 2025 Personal Statement, the Applicant states (in part):

Over the past years, I have grown and matured significantly. I now understand the importance of the choices we make, and I am committed to never taking the wrong path again. I am deeply grateful to have people in my life who care about me,...When I return to the community, I will be able to start working immediately and live a lawful and responsible life without needing to resort to any illegal means.

Today, I have nothing left to hide. I have accepted my past and am committed to building a new future. I am dedicated to honesty, transparency, and genuine rehabilitation. I know I have made serious mistakes, but I am no longer the same person...:HB95.

1. In the 11 October 2025 Personal Statement, the Applicant states (in part):

While reading Buddhist philosophy in custody, I encountered a teaching that changed my entire perspective: negative actions generate negative consequences. This wasn't abstract philosophy - it was my lived reality. I had planted the seed of wrongdoing, and I was forced to endure its bitter fruit.

This insight fundamentally transformed how I view my choices and my future. I now understand that life is like a marathon - it requires persistence, patience, and consistent effort. I am determined never to reoffend because I will never put myself or my family through this agony again.

• Minimal serious criminal history: Yes, I had minor convictions in 2022, but this was my first serious offence in Australia. I am not a career criminal.

Genuine insight and remorse: I understand the harm I caused and am determined never to repeat my mistakes: HB242.

1. As contended by the Respondent, whilst the 2 January 2025 Personal Statement, the 15 May 2025 Personal Statement and the 3 August 2025 Personal Statement speak generally of the Applicant's remorse and desire not to reoffend, they only superficially address the impacts of his 'very serious' offending and demonstrate limited insight into the underlying drivers of his offending and lack genuine remorse: HB509 at [44]. The same can be said for the most recent 11 October 2025 Personal Statement. The fact that the Applicant refers, in the 11 October 2025 Personal Statement, to his overall criminal history as being 'minimal', and to his 2022 convictions as 'minor', highlights his complete lack of insight into his 'very serious' offending and insincerity as regards his expressions of remorse.
2. This is consistent with the Hubner Report, which states:
   1. ...During discussions about his proceedings, Mr So has shown some insight into his behaviour, acknowledging poor decision-making but demonstrating limited understanding of the broader implications of his actions. That lack of insight may be partially attributed to his mental health conditions...

1. Mr So has expressed a degree of acceptance of responsibility for his actions, acknowledging that his choices were influenced by his circumstances and mental health struggles. However, he also tended to externalise blame, particularly regarding the financial pressures he faced. This ambivalence may hinder his ability to fully engage in rehabilitation efforts, as recognising the full extent of his responsibility is crucial to personal growth and change: HB65.

[The Applicant] expressed an apology to the community for his offending in a letter to the Court. Testimonials indicate he has exhibited remorse. The evidence thus establishes that [the Applicant] is remorseful, albeit with some limitations as to acknowledgement of the consequences of his offending: HB45.

1. It is also telling that the Applicant did not disclose his New Zealand offending when he was questioned by Department officials. This was deliberately deceptive and further demonstrates a disregard for Australia's laws and an avoidance of responsibility, by the Applicant, for his actions: HB515. Further, the Applicant failed to disclose his New Zealand criminal convictions on the Incoming Passenger Card upon his return to Australia from Hong Kong (after his deportation from New Zealand to Hong Kong), on his Resident Return Visa application, dated 8 February 2019 (HB177), and his protection visa application, dated 15 May 2025 (HB185). Importantly, these visa applications, in which the Applicant did not disclose his New Zealand criminal convictions, were made sometime after the Applicant was questioned by Australian officials and he disclosed his New Zealand convictions. Put simply, this is dishonest, again showing a complete disrespect for Australian law.
2. As set out above, Applicant states that he will not make the same mistakes again and he has been able to reflect on his poor life choices in custody: HB92-HB93. However, this is not the first opportunity the Applicant has had to reflect on his poor life choices. The Applicant received a prison sentence in 2018 in New Zealand, and was deported to Hong Kong. As contended by the Respondent, it should have been clear to the Applicant, at that juncture, what the outcome of any further criminal offending may be: HB510 at [47]. However, his experience in New Zealand did not result in the Applicant abstaining from further, and more serious, criminal activity. Instead, the Applicant returned to Australia and engaged in serious criminal drug offending, demonstrating a disregard for Australia laws and the safety of the Australian community, which is the highest priority of the Australian Government: paragraph 8.1(1) of Direction 110.

Conclusion - Risk to the Australian community (paragraph 8.1.2 of Direction 110)

1. The overall evidence before the Tribunal supports the conclusion that the Applicant is a 'medium' risk of reoffending, and that, having regard to the 'very serious' nature of the harm that may be caused to the Australian community should the applicant reoffend, this risk is unacceptably high. That is, the Tribunal considers that the Applicant presents a real, and not insignificant, 'risk' of reoffending and, if he were to reoffend, further 'very serious' harm would be visited upon the Australian community, noting that even a 'low' risk of offending is unacceptable if the gravity of the harm that might eventuate, as is the case here, is sufficiently 'serious'.[20]
2. For the above reasons, the Tribunal finds that the 'risk' to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in further 'very serious' conduct, weighs heavily against revocation: paragraph 8.1.2 of Direction 110.

Conclusion: Protection of the Australian community (paragraph 8.1 of Direction 110)

1. Informed by the 'Principles' stated in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110, and considering: (i) the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct to date; and (ii) the risk to the Australian community should he commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct, the Tribunal considers that the first 'primary consideration' (Protection of the Australian community), in paragraph 8.1. of Direction 110, weighs heavily against revocation, noting that the safety of the 'Australian community' is the highest priority of the Australian government: paragraph 5.2(2) of Direction 110.

SECOND PRIMARY CONSIDERATION: WHETHER THE CONDUCT ENGAGED IN CONSTITUTED FAMILY VIOLENCE (PARAGRAPH 8.2 OF DIRECTION 110)

1. Paragraph 8.2(1) of Direction 110 provides that the Government has 'serious concerns about conferring on non-citizens who engage in family violence the privilege of... remaining in Australia'. This consideration is relevant both in circumstances where there has been a conviction of a 'family violence' offence, and where there is information or evidence from independent and authoritative sources indicating that there has been the perpetration of 'family violence': paragraph 8.2(2) of Direction 110.[21]
2. Direction 110 provides that 'family violence' means violent, threatening, or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person's family or causes the family member to be fearful. The definition also includes examples of behaviour that may constitute family violence: paragraph 4(1) of Direction 110. As noted by Senior Member Kirk in Lum and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] AATA 792 at [139]:

The Tribunal has consistently found that family violence is abhorrent. It has been described as a corrosive blight on the Australian community'', 'plainly abhorrent and an offence which 'warps and destroys the healthy bonds that should exist between partners and within families...

3. There is no evidence before the Tribunal of 'family violence' committed by the Applicant. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the second 'primary consideration' (Family violence committed by the non-citizen), in paragraph 8.2. of Direction 110, carries no weight for or against revocation.

THIRD PRIMARY CONSIDERATION: THE STRENGTH, NATURE AND DURATION OF TIES TO AUSTRALIA (PARAGRAPH 8.3 OF DIRECTION 110)

1. Paragraph 8.3(1) of Direction 110 provides that the Tribunal must consider any impact of the decision whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen's visa on the non-citizen's 'immediate family members in Australia', where those family members are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, or people who have the right to remain in Australia indefinitely.
2. Paragraph 8.3(2) of Direction 110 provides that in considering whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen's visa, the Tribunal must also consider the strength, nature and duration of 'any other ties' that the Applicant has to the Australian community. In doing so, the Tribunal 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; and > > (b) the strength, duration and nature of family or social links with Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, and/or people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia.

3. The Applicant arrived in Australia on 8 August 2012, aged 15 years old, and, within two or three years, commenced drinking, consuming cannabis and taking MDMA and, in around 2014, was selling cannabis to his friends and classmates. He then went on to commit his 'very serious' offending, as described above.
4. Although the Applicant moved to Australia 13 years ago (aged 15), the time he has spent in the Australian community is considerably less. He has spent two years out of Australia in New Zealand and Hong Kong and has been in prison or detention since November 2021, reducing his actual time in the Australian community to approximately seven years. That is not a short period, but neither is it significant.

Immediate family members in Australia (paragraph 8.3(1) of Direction 110)

1. The Applicant has identified four 'immediate' family members in Australia, as follows:

(ii) His biological father: Yung Sheng So (permanent resident):

(iii) His step-father: Fernando Jernimo Ribas (Australian citizen); and

1. The evidence of the Applicant and his four 'immediate' family members is that a decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa would adversely impact them.
2. In the 3 August 2025 Personal Statement, the Applicant states:

During my incarceration, and being separated from my family, the importance of family has become paramount. I truly treasure their love and support for me. I am the eldest child and, as you will be aware, it is integral to my culture and upbringing that it is my responsibility to support and look after my family, particularly my mother, whom I have missed so much already: HB91.

1. In the 11 October 2025 Personal Statement, the Applicant explains why his mother and biological father 'need' him to remain in Australia:

My entire immediate family lives in Australia. They depend on me not just emotionally, but practically and financially. If I am removed, their lived will be devasted.

My mother suffers from severe, long-standing depression. Her mental health has been fragile for many years, with a family history of psychiatric conditions (both her grandmother and mother were diagnosed with serious mental illnesses). Medical evidence confirms that her condition was worsened significantly due to my incarceration.

If I am removed from Australia, her treating medical professionals have expressed serious concern that she will experience a sever psychiatric crisis, potentially requiring hospitalization or worse. She depends on me for emotional support and practical assistance. Losing me would cause irreparable harm to her wellbeing.

My biological father is elderly and does not speak English. He relies on me completely for:

• Interpreting and translating at medical appointments and when dealing with government services;
• Daily communication and navigation of Australian society;
• Managing banking, bills, and administrative tasks; and
• Emotional support and companionship.

Without me, he would face extreme hardship and isolation. His quality of life and potentially his health outcomes would be severely compromised.

1. The Applicant's mother, biological father, step-father, and younger (adult) brother provided statements in support of the Applicant.
2. The Applicant's mother's statement, dated 2 November 2024, provides (in part):

I'm a fifty six year old mother who missed his childhood and now I'm retired, my biggest wish is to spend time with my kids. He's still in his twenties and I believe he'll be a contribution to society and his family if he gets a chance: HB98.

1. The Applicant's mother appeared before the Tribunal, in person, and gave evidence. In her oral evidence, the Applicant's mother said that she would suffer psychological harm if the Applicant is removed. However, this evidence must be considered in the context of the fact she is in a loving and stable relationship, of some 13 years, with her husband (the Applicant's step father) who provides for her emotionally and financially. Further, the Applicant's mother's younger son (the Applicant's younger brother) and his partner lives in Sydney and they are in frequent contact. He visits her every one to two weeks and they talk on the phone every two or three days. These other relationships will be a source of support to the Applicant's mother if he is removed. There is no reason the Applicant could not maintain contact with his mother via telephone, WeChat, or video chat from Hong Kong, as he has been doing since his incarceration four years ago.
2. The Applicant's biological father's statement, dated 24 September 2024, provides (in part):

I am already an elderly man, and I find it very difficult to manage life in Australia on my own. I do not speak English and I rely heavily on my son for support in daily life. He helps me with translation, medical appointments, communication, and many other essential matters. Without him, I would struggle greatly, as I simply cannot manage these things by myself.

My son is not only my helper but also the emotional support for me and our family. His presence gives me strength and stability. I know that he made mistakes in the past but I have seen with my own eyes how much he has changed. He has become more mature, responsible, and committed to living a positive and law-abiding life.

If my elder son is removed from Australia, it will break our family apart and leave both myself and his younger brother without the support we rely on. This would place a heavy burden on me and on our whole family - both emotionally and practically: HB254.

1. The Applicant's biological father appeared before the Tribunal, by telephone, and gave evidence with the assistance of a Cantonese interpreter. As stated in evidence by the Applicant, his English is basic. The Applicant's biological father's evidence is similarly that he would be negatively impacted if the Applicant were removed from Australia to Hong Kong. Although the Applicant's biological father decided to move to Australia many years ago, he did not actually move to Australia until the Applicant had been taken into custody. The Applicant has been providing his father with some help whilst incarcerated and without being physically present with his father. There is nothing preventing the Applicant from continuing to help his father 'remotely' from Hong Kong.
2. The Applicant's step-father's statement, dated 21 October 2024, provides (in part):

...I believe he's a good kid with good intentions but [got] lost in the way of achieving his goal towards his family: HB96.

1. The Applicant's step-father was present at the hearing, but was not required for cross-examination by the Respondent.
2. In Dr Sheridan's oral evidence at the hearing, she described the Applicant's step-father as the 'only one ready to take a positive and pro-active role' and that he was a 'strong protective factor' for the Applicant - he has consistently stood behind the Applicant and helped him. Dr Sheridan described the Applicant's step-father as someone the Applicant 'truly looks up to,' feels 'indebted to' and feels 'gratitude' for. In contrast, Dr Sheridan told the Tribunal that the Applicant's relationship with his father, if the Applicant remains in Australia, 'could be a hindrance,' with the Applicant having to be his biological father's 'interpreter.'
3. The Applicant's younger brother's statement, dated 16 October 2025, provides (in part):

As his brother, I am committed to guiding and supporting him, and ensuring he continues on the right path. With our family's support, I truly believe he can make a positive contribution to society: HB259.

1. The Applicant's younger brother appeared before the Tribunal, by telephone, and gave evidence. In relation to the proceeds of crime offending, the Applicant's younger brother told the Tribunal that, like his brother, he did not understand what they were doing at that time was illegal, but that he now understands it was. For that crime, he was required to serve 100 hours community service. He told the Tribunal that he lives in Sydney and sees his mother and step-father once every one to two weeks, work commitments permitting. He attends his mother and his step-father's one bedroom apartment in Bondi Junction and they will 'cook him dinner'.
2. The Applicant's mother has also provided a 'Psychological Assessment Report', dated 29 May 2025, which attests to the impact of the uncertainty of the Applicant's immigration status on her mental health. That report states:

...She worries excessively for her elder son's immigration difficulty which further exacerbated her distress and alcohol misuse...Her elder son's immigration difficulty remained a current significant stressor and perpetuating factor to her symptoms.

She is unlikely to improve her conditions before the issue with her elder son's immigration status is resolved. She needs to stay connected with her children and perceive a sense of responsibility to protect them...

1. The Tribunal accepts that a decision not to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant's Resident Return Visa is likely to have a negative impact on the Applicant's 'immediate' family members, including, especially, his mother.
2. However, this impact must be considered in the context of the Applicant's two long periods of absence from Australia, and the time he has spent in custody: paragraph 8.3(1) of Direction 110.

Other ties to the Australian community (paragraph 8.3(2) of Direction 110)

1. The Applicant provided two supporting letters from Ms Lue Fang, a friend of approximately six years, one dated 23 October 2024 and the other dated 15 October 2025: HB97 and HB257-HB258. In both letters, Ms Fang states that if the Applicant is allowed to remain in Australia, she will assist him with employment at Archiview Pty Ltd, the company where she works as a Design Manager. The Tribunal places little weight on this evidence in circumstances for over three of the six years in which Ms Fang has been a 'close friend' of the Applicant, the Applicant has been in immigration detention.
2. The Applicant also provided a supporting letter from Ms Kin San Ho, dated 26 September 2025: HB256. Although Ms Ho states that she has been a friend of the Applicant since they were teenagers, the Tribunal places little weight on this letter in circumstances where it is clear that Ms Ho has no knowledge of his New Zealand convictions, his 2022 convictions, and was not made available for cross-examination to determine the extent of the relationship Mr Ho has had with the Applicant while he has been in prison and detention.
3. The Applicant's education and employment history is summarised in the Hubner Report, as follows:
   1. Mr So attended school in Hong Kong until he immigrated to Australia at the age of 15. Upon his arrival, he was enrolled at Hurstvill Boys High School, where he completed Grade 10...
   2. While attending school in Australia, Mr So reportedly experienced bullying from his peers due to his limited English proficiency and his smaller-than-average height and build. To escape these negative social interactions, he frequently left school without permission to spend time at a nearby internet café.
   3. Mr So also attended an Intensive English Centre in Beverly Hills, where he met most of his friends, including one of the co-accused [i.e. his friend Yao] with whom he initially played video games. It was through this friendship group that he began to experiment with alcohol and cannabis, and he was introduced to a small group of other Asian immigrants who engaged in similar activities. He mentioned that one of these friends was arrested for drug-related offences in 2020 and was subsequently deported.
   4. After leaving school, Mr So obtained an apprenticeship as a barber through TAFE NSW but only completed one month of training before seeking higher income opportunities. He briefly worked as a kitchen hand, labourer, apprentice stock trader, and in a local restaurant, and he occasionally served as a receptionist at his mother's massage parlour. Around the age of 18, he began earning money through drug-related activities involving cannabis. During this time, he also made significant financial gains through cryptocurrency investments: HB59.
4. Based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that the strength, nature and duration of 'other ties' to the Australian community (i.e. other than 'immediate' family members in Australia) carries minimal weight in favour of revocation: paragraph 8.3(2)(a) of Direction 110.

Conclusion: The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia (paragraph 8.3 of Direction 110)

1. For the above reasons, the Tribunal considers that, overall, the third 'primary consideration' (the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia), in paragraph 8.3 of Direction 110, weighs moderately in favour of revocation.
2. However, the third 'primary consideration' (the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia), in paragraph 8.3 of Direction 110, which weighs moderately in favour of revocation, should not, in the Tribunal's view, outweigh the other 'primary considerations' which weigh heavily against revocation, namely the first 'primary consideration' (Protection of the Australian community), in paragraph 8.1 of Direction 110, and the fifth 'primary consideration' (Expectations of the Australian community), in paragraph 8.5 of Direction 110.

FOURTH PRIMARY CONSIDERATION: THE BEST INTERESTS OF MINOR CHILDREN IN AUSTRALIA AFFECTED BY THE DECISION (PARAGRAPH 8.4 OF DIRECTION 110)

1. Informed by the 'Principles' set out in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110, the Tribunal must determine whether non-revocation under s 501CA of the Migration Act is or is not in the best interests of a child under 18 years old who, at the time when the decision is expected to be made, is affected by the decision: paragraph 8.4(1) and (2) of Direction 110. If there are two or more relevant children, the best interests of each child should be given individual consideration to the extent that their interests may differ: paragraph 8.4(3) of Direction 110.
2. Paragraph 8.4(4) of Direction 110, states that in considering the best interests of the child, the Tribunal must consider the following factors, where relevant:

(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; > > (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 non-citizen's ability to maintain contact with the child 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; and > > (h) evidence that the child has suffered or experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from the non-citizen's conduct: paragraph 8.4(4) of Direction 110.

3. The Applicant has a minor half-brother (currently aged seven years old) who is the son of his biological father and his current partner.
4. In the Applicant's biological father's supporting letter, dated 24 September 2025, the Applicant's father states:

...my youngest son, Hau Shing So (Tsz Fung's younger brother), is still a minor. We are expecting he will grow up and study in Australia. He needs his elder brother as a guide and role model to teach him how to become a good, responsible person in society. Without his elder brother's guidance, I am very worried that my younger son will not have the support he needs during these important years of his life.

...I respectfully ask the Tribunal to give my son the chance to stay in Australia, so that he can continue to support me in my old age, help his younger brother grow up in the right way, and keep our family together: HB254.

1. In the 11 October 2025 Personal Statement, the Applicant states:

My youngest brother is still a minor. He is growing up in Australia and expects to complete his education here. As his older brother, I have a responsibility to guide him, support his development, and act as a positive role model.

Importantly, I can show him - through my own painful experience - the devastating consequences of making poor choices and the value of rehabilitation and second chances: HB238.

1. In the 11 October 2025 Personal Statement, the Applicant further states:

My removal would deprive him [i.e. the Applicant's minor half-brother] of his older brother during critical developmental years and cause significant emotional harm: HB243.

1. The Tribunal accepts that the best interests of the Applicant's minor half-brother are relevant to this consideration. However, the Tribunal affords this consideration limited weight in favour of revocation in circumstances where:
   • The Applicant's minor half-brother has resided in Hong Kong up until April 2025, when he immigrated to Australia with his father (the Applicant's biological father) and his mother and the Applicant has been in immigration detention since their arrival. The Applicant's minor half-brother has been unable to visit the Applicant in detention;
   • The Applicant's minor half-brother is in the daily care of his parents and they pay for his day to day expenses. The Applicant never had, and does not presently have, a parental role or responsibility in relation to his minor half-brother, apart from one occasion when the Applicant paid $1000 or so towards his visa expenses;
   • The Applicant first met his minor half-brother when he was two years old and met him again when he was aged four;
   • There has been minimal meaningful contact between the Applicant and his minor half-brother to date. In his oral evidence at the hearing, the Applicant told the Tribunal that he communicates with his biological father, and minor half-brother, either fortnightly or monthly, but his half-brother is currently too young for any meaningful conversation and their communication is limited to discussing his toy cars and Lego; and
   • It can be inferred from the fact that the Applicant's minor step-brother was not identified prior to the Applicant providing his materials for his review application before the Tribunal, that their relationship is relatively recent.
2. For the above reasons, the Tribunal finds overall that the third 'primary consideration' (The best interests of minor children affected by the decision), in paragraph 8.4 of Direction 110, carries limited weight in favour of revocation.
3. The fourth 'primary consideration' (The best interests of minor children affected by the decision), in paragraph 8.4 of Direction 110, which, overall, carries limited weight in favour of revocation, should not, in the Tribunal's view, outweigh the other 'primary considerations' which weigh heavily against revocation, namely the first 'primary consideration' (Protection of the Australian community), in paragraph 8.1 of Direction 110, and the fifth 'primary consideration' (Expectations of the Australian community), in paragraph 8.5 of Direction 110.

FIFTH PRIMARY CONSIDERATION: EXPECTATIONS OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY (PARAGRAPH 8.5 OF DIRECTION 110)

Informed by the 'Principles' set out in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110, paragraph 8.5 of Direction 110 provides that the Tribunal must consider the expectations of the 'Australian Community'. Paragraph 8.5(1) of Direction 110 states:

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 Australia community, as a norm, expects the Government to not allow such a non-citizen to enter or remain in Australia. > > (emphasis added)

The first sentence of paragraph 8.5(1), 'The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia', reflects the rule of law as it applies to both citizens and non-citizens.[22] The remainder of paragraph 8.5(1) of Direction 110 sets out the expectations of the Australian community 'as a norm'. The effect of this is to deem what the expectations of the Australian community are and thereby preclude the Tribunal from undertaking any assessment of what, in any factual circumstances, the actual expectations of the Australian community might be.[23] That proposition is encapsulated in paragraph 8.5(4) of Direction 110, which provides:

This consideration is about the expectations of the Australian community as a whole, and in this respect, decision-makers should proceed on the basis of the Government's views as articulated above, without independently assessing the community's expectations in the particular case.

The utility of this approach by the Australian Government, to assist decision-makers, is obvious. Paragraph 8.5(2) also provides guidance by stating:

In addition,.....non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of a visa may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences is such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not... 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:

Relevantly, for present purposes (i.e. given that the majority of the Applicant's 'very serious' conduct/offending is drug related), paragraph 8.5(3) of Direction 110 states:

The above expectations of the Australian community apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community. > > (emphasis added)

Given the 'very serious' nature of the Applicant's offending, and the unacceptable risk of him reoffending, the Tribunal considers that the Australian community would expect the Applicant should not continue to hold a visa: paragraph 8.5(2) of Direction 110. 6. For the above reasons, the Tribunal considers that the fifth 'primary consideration' (Expectations of the Australian community), in paragraph 8.5 of Direction 110, weighs heavily against revocation.

FIRST OTHER CONSIDERATION: LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE DECISION (PARAGRAPH 9.1 OF DIRECTION 110)

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

1. That is, in considering the legal consequences of its decision whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen's visa, paragraph 9.1(1) of Direction 110 requires the Tribunal must have regard to the statutory framework in which the power to revoke a mandatory cancellation decision exists, including the direct and immediate consequences of an exercise of the power, including any decision under s 105 of the ART Act.[24]
2. There are three major adverse consequences of visa refusal or cancellation under s 501 of the Migration Act and related provisions, which can be avoided by a positive decision to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen's visa, as follows:

(a) a prohibition, within the migration zone, on applying for other types of visas under s 501E of the Migration Act (other than a protection visa or a bridging (removal pending) visa); [25] > > (b) refusal/cancellation of other visa applications/visas under s 501F of the Migration Act; and > > (c) possible periods of exclusion and special return criteria under s 503 of the Migration Act and SRC 5001 and 5002 in Sch 5 to the Migration Regulations. This includes permanent exclusion where SRC 5001 applies unless the Minister acts personally to grant a permanent visa to the person under s 195A of the Migration Act.

3. The Applicant claims that he fears harm if returned to Hong Kong as he has outstanding debts to Triad organisations from years ago which remain unpaid and he will be vulnerable to threats, intimidations and violence and intimidation from these organisations as he cannot repay those debts: HB244.
4. The Applicant has previously made this claim before a delegate of the Minister in the context of his protection visa application, lodged with the Department on 15 May 2025: HB185-HB214. This claim was considered and rejected by a delegate of the Minister on 25 August 2025: HB215-HB232. The Applicant has not sought review of the decision of the delegate not to grant him a protection visa. Accordingly, it is not open to the Applicant to attempt to seek review of findings of the delegate in respect of his protection visa application (as he appears to do at pages 21 - 42 of his 'Point-by-Point Rebuttal document, dated 11 October 2025: HB514-HB558) within these proceedings.
5. The Applicant also claims that he would be at severe risk of a 'mental health crisis' if returned to Hong Kong: HB244. Whilst it is not clear whether this is raised as a non-refoulement claim, or whether this claim is limited to consideration of the extent of impediments if removed, the Tribunal notes that this is a claim that was squarely raised before the delegate in the context of the Applicant's protection visa application, dated 15 May 2025, and rejected by the delegate on 25 August 2025: HB185-HB232.
6. The Applicant has not made an application to the Tribunal for a merits review of the delegate's decision not to grant the Applicant a protection visa. Consequently, that protection visa application has been finally determined.[26] As contended by the Respondent, where the Applicant's claims have been very recently assessed, through the proper statutory process, and found not to engage Australia's protection obligations, while the Applicant may subjectively continue to hold fears of harm, that harm has not been found to be objectively established: HB563.
7. It follows that the Applicant is not owed non-refoulment obligations and the legal consequence of a decision by the Tribunal to affirm the Minister's decision, not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's Resident Return Visa, is that the Applicant will remain in immigration detention until he is removed from Australia to Hong Kong.[27]
8. For the above reasons, the Tribunal considers that the first 'other consideration' (Legal consequences of the decision), in paragraph 9.1 of Direction 110, carries no weight for or against revocation.

SECOND OTHER CONSIDERATION: EXTENT OF IMPEDIMENTS IF REMOVED (PARAGRAPH 9.2 OF DIRECTION 110)

1. Paragraph 9.2 of Direction 110 provides that the Tribunal must consider:

...the extent of any impediments that the non-citizen may face if removed from Australia to their home country, in establishing themselves and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country), taking into account: > > a) the non-citizen's age and health; > > b) whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers; and

1. any social, medical and/or economic support available to the Applicant in their country.

Applicant's age and health: paragraph 9.2(1)(a) of Direction 110

1. The Applicant is currently 29 years old and, in his oral evidence at the hearing, told the Tribunal that he is currently in good health physically.
2. As stated above, the Applicant has been diagnosed by forensic psychologist, Dr Sheridan, with Persistent Depressive Disorder, Substance Use Disorder and Post-traumatic Stress Disorder: HB270. According to Dr Sheridan, the Applicant also 'presents with features consistent with ADHD and autism spectrum traits requiring formal assessment': HB270. Since he was assaulted in prison in 2023 (aged 26), the Applicant has taken mood stabilising medication, Avanza (15 mg daily), and seen a psychologist or mental health nurse in detention about once a month.

Substantial language or cultural barriers in Hong Kong: paragraph 9.2(1)(b) of Direction 110

1. As stated above, the Applicant was born in Hong Kong and lived there until the age of 15, when he relocated to Australia in August 2012 with his family. He is currently 29 years old. As such, the Applicant has spent more than half his life in Hong Kong. The Applicant completed much of his schooling in Hong Kong. The Applicant is fluent in Cantonese and Mandarin. Since settling in Australia, the Applicant has returned to Hong Kong on at least four occasions, including two lengthy stays. It follows that the Applicant is familiar with the Hong Kong language and culture.
2. Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant will not experience 'substantial' language or cultural barriers in Hong Kong: paragraph 9.2(1)(b) of Direction 110.

Social, medical, and/or economic support available in Hong Kong: paragraph 9.2(1)(c) of Direction 110

1. The Applicant states that he has limited connections to and no support network in Hong Kong, having left there as a young person many years ago: HB238 and HB244.
2. In his oral evidence at the hearing, the Applicant said that he has some remaining aunties and uncles living in Hong Kong, but he does not even know their names. In his oral evidence at the hearing the Applicant's biological father told the Tribunal that he is one of nine children and that his other eight siblings remain living in Hong Kong. Although the Applicant may not have had any contact with these relatives in many years, they live in Hong Kong and there is nothing preventing him from reaching out to them and seeking their support, emotionally, socially and financially, upon his return.
3. Further, the Applicant's biological father said that until he immigrated to Australia in April 2025 he has spent the majority of his life living and working in Hong Kong (where he was born) and that he does have some friends (former work colleagues) in Hong Kong, but not many.

1. There is no evidence that anti-depressant medications are unavailable in Hong Kong. There is also nothing to suggest that the Applicant would be given anything less the standard of health care available to any other citizen of Hong Kong.
2. In the 11 October 2025 Personal Statement, the Applicant states that his removal to Hong Kong would place him at 'severe risk' of a 'mental health crisis' and that:

Mental health services in Hong Kong are expensive, difficult to access, and heavily stigmatised. [He] would not be able to afford treatment or maintain continuity of care: HB245.

1. The Applicant has previously raised these claims in his protection visa application: HB208. Although, the Tribunal accepts that they are also relevant to the Tribunal's consideration of the extent of the impediments which the Applicant may face if returned to Hong Kong.
2. Whilst the Tribunal accepts that the Applicant may face difficulties accessing mental health services in Hong Kong, he would be entitled to the same standard of mental health treatment to any other citizen of Hong Kong. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 'DFAT Country Information Report China,' dated 27 December 2024 (DFAT Report China) indicates that basic health care services and care in China are provided free of charge by the government and that the rights of people living with mental health conditions is protected by law. Specifically, the DFAT Report China states:

2.41 China's Mental Health Law (2012) is aimed at protecting the human rights of people living with mental health conditions by requiring psychiatric treatment to be voluntary in the majority of circumstances, and noting seclusion and restraints should only be used if there were no alternatives. However, a 2022 study published in the International Journal of Mental Health Systems reported that involuntary admission to psychiatric hospitals continued to occur in 70 per cent of cases, while a 2016 study published in the Psychiatry Research journal stated that physical restraints were still used in 22 per cent of cases in psychiatric hospitals.

2.42 The WHO estimated that approximately 4 per cent of people in China are living with depression, and 3 per cent with an anxiety disorder. Although demand for mental health services is growing, many people remain reluctant to seek help due to stigma. According to a study exploring mental health stigma and mental health knowledge amongst China's population published in BMC Psychology in 2020, approximately 45 per cent of participants thought most people would not accept a former patient of a mental health facility as a close friend, 70 per cent thought that most young women would not date a man who had been hospitalised with a serious mental health condition, and almost 55 per cent of participants would not employ a person who was a former patient of a mental health facility.

2.43 The Government of China has increased investment in mental health services in recent years and stated plans for at least 80 per cent of people living with depression to have access to treatment by 2030. While mental health services were typically covered under BHI, availability and quality varied depending on location. Required medications to treat most mental health conditions were generally available in 2023. The majority of mental health resources were found in provincial capitals in the more developed east coast of the country. Mental health services were generally concentrated in large specialty hospitals, rather than within the community and primary healthcare sector. The workforce was primarily made up of psychiatrists and nurses, with few counsellors or therapists generally available. Services were typically provided on an outpatient basis. International academics reported that the centralised system of mental healthcare was not adequate to meet China's mental healthcare needs in 2022.

1. The Tribunal acknowledges that the Applicant may face some difficulties securing employment in Hong Kong. However, in his oral evidence at the hearing the Applicant told the Tribunal that when he lived in Hong Kong from 19 June 2014 to 6 April 2015 (i.e. for approximately nine months) he worked in the following four jobs:

(i) Financial agent (two to three months), which job he obtained through a childhood friend;

(iii) Building/constructing stages for performances, which job he obtained through a friend; and

1. It can be inferred from the fact that the Applicant was able to obtain four jobs in a nine month period in Hong Kong (i.e. from 19 June 2014 to 6 April 2015), at least two of which he obtained through old friends, that he would be able to find employment in Hong Kong again in the future and that he does have people in Hong Kong that he can go to for help. That is, he has a support network in Hong Kong.
2. When he was deported to Hong Kong from New Zealand in 2018, the Applicant obtained part-time employment at the airport packing parcels.
3. The Applicant has also worked in several jobs in Australia, including kitchen hand, labourer/construction worker, gardening, waiter, real estate agent and as a receptionist in his mother's massage parlour: HB59 and the Applicant's oral evidence at the hearing.
4. Accordingly, the Applicant has a broad range of skills and experience that he can use to obtain employment in Hong Kong.
5. The Applicant's mother lived in Hong Kong until 2009.
6. The Applicant's biological father has lived in Hong Kong his whole life and he is in a relationship with a Hong Kong citizen. The Applicant's biological father is one of nine children. The Applicant's biological father's girlfriend has family in Hong Kong.
7. The Applicant has retained a connection with Hong Kong though these family relationships and, although his immediate family now all reside in Australia, his extended family in Hong Kong may be able to provide the Applicant with support in Hong Kong.
8. The Applicant has also shown himself to be reliable in the prison working environment. It is reported in Corrective Services NSW 'Pre-release report,' dated 6 January 2025, that:

Mr So has worked in various roles throughout his incarceration period including reception sweeper, cleaner and laundry hand. Case notes suggest that he displayed "exceptional qualities," works well in a team and is respectful towards staff and other inmates: HB52.

Conclusion: Extent of impediments if removed (paragraph 9.2 of Direction 110)

1. The Tribunal acknowledges that the Applicant may face some practical, financial, and emotional hardship upon his return to Hong Kong, as a result of being separated from his family in Australia and in re-establishing himself in Hong Kong. However, these impediments are not insurmountable.
2. As stated above, the second 'other consideration' is directed at whether a person can establish themselves and maintain 'basic living standards' if removed from Australia to their home country: paragraph 9.2(1) of Direction 110. On the evidence before it, the Applicant will be able to establish himself and maintain 'basic living standards' if removed from Australia to Hong Kong: paragraph 9.2(1) of Direction 110.
3. For the above reasons, the Tribunal considers that the second 'other consideration' (Extent of impediments if removed), in paragraph 9.2 of Direction 110, carries limited weight in favour of revocation.

THIRD OTHER CONSIDERATION: IMPACT ON AUSTRALIAN BUSINESS INTERESTS (PARAGRAPH 9.3 OF DIRECTION 110)

1. Paragraph 9.3(1) of Direction 110 provides that the Tribunal must consider any impact on Australian business interests if the non-citizen is not allowed to remain in Australia, noting that an employment link would generally only be given weight where the decision under s 501 or s 501CA 'would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project, or delivery of an important service in Australia.'
2. There is no evidence before the Tribunal of any impact on Australian businesses, or significantly compromising the delivery of a major project or important service in Australia, if the Applicant is not allowed to remain in Australia.
3. Consequently, the Tribunal considers that the third 'other consideration' (Impact on Australian business interests), in paragraph 9.3 of Direction 110, carries no weight for or against revocation.

1. For the above reasons, in relation to the five 'primary considerations' (in section 8 of Part 2 to Direction 110), the Tribunal concludes:

(a) Protection of the Australian community (paragraph 8.1 of Direction 110) - weighs heavily against revocation; > > (b) Family violence committed by the non-citizen (paragraph 8.2 of Direction 110) - carries no weight for or against revocation; > > (c) The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia (paragraph 8.3 of Direction 110) - carries limited weight in favour of revocation; > > (d) Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision (paragraph 8.4 of Direction 110) - carries limited weight in favour of revocation; and > > (e) expectations of the Australian community (paragraph 8.5 of Direction 110) - weighs heavily against revocation.

2. For the above reasons, in relation to the three 'other considerations' (in section 9 of Part 2 to Direction 110), the Tribunal concludes:

(a) Legal consequences of the decision (paragraph 9.1 of Direction 110) - carries no weight for or against revocation; > > (b) Extent of impediments if removed (paragraph 9.2 of Direction 110) - carries limited weight in favour of revocation; and > > (c) Impact on Australian business interests (paragraph 9.3 of Direction 110) - carries no weight for or against revocation.

3. Informed by the 'Principles' in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110, and having weighed the considerations in favour of revocation and the considerations against revocation, the Tribunal is not satisfied, on balance, there is 'another reason' why the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa should be revoked.
4. In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal notes that, as stated above, paragraph 7(2) of Direction 110 states that the first 'primary consideration' (Protection of the Australian community), in paragraph 8.1 of Direction 110, is generally given greater weight than the other four 'primary considerations' and that, otherwise, the 'primary considerations' (in section 8 of Part 2 of Direction 110) should generally be given greater weight than the three 'other considerations' (in section 9 of Part 2 of Direction 110).

1. For the above reasons, the Tribunal affirms the decision under review (i.e. the Non-revocation Decision).

I certify that the preceding two hundred and eleven (211) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member C Lyford

[1] The Joint Hearing Bundle, Volume 1 and Volume 2 (comprising 563 pages), was marked as 'Exhibit 1' on day one of two days of hearing on 6 November 2025 (HB).

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

[3] Gaspar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) 153 ALD 338.

[4] Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (ART Act), s 56(1)(a); Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 (Drake (No 2)) at 636; Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2008] HCA 31; (2008) 235 CLR 286 at [140]; CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 138 at [35].

[5] Au v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 125 at [21]-[26].

[6] See also Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v Viane (2021) 274 CLR 398 at [13]-[15]; Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs v McQueen (2024) 94 ALJR 594 at [6].

[7] See LPDT v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 12; (2024) 98 ALJR 610 at [33].

[8] See Minister for Home Affairs v G [2019] FCAFC 79; (2019) 266 FCR 569; Lasalo v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCAFC 82 at [27].

[9] Gaspar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1166 at [38].

[10] https://minister.homeaffairs.gov.au/AndrewGiles/Pages/ministerial-direction-110-signed-07062024.aspx. See also s 15AB of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

[11] Falzon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] HCA 2; (2018) 262 CLR 333 at [94].

[12] BNY23 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 608 at [107]; Siale v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FCA 608 at [34]; Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Peralta Montes [2025] FCA 667 at [89]-[90].

[13] Short and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] AATA 3037.

[14] See Pokrywka and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] AATA 5165 at [35]; Gage and Minister for Home Affairs [2020] AATA 326 at [75]- [76]; SLNY and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] AATA 344 at [43]; Berryman and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] AATA 421 at [80]- [81]; Mayes and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] AATA 32 at [50]- [51].

[15] Minister for Immigration Multicultural Affairs v Ali [2000] FCA 1385; (2000) 106 FCR 313 at [42]; Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] HCA 15; (2015) 256 CLR 203 at [5], [44], [102], and [104].

[16] See Re RRRB and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] ARTA 471 at [74].

[17] Bartlett and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration) [2017] AATA 1561 at [33]-[36].

[18] Department of Home Affairs, Illicit Drugs Action Plan,

https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about-us-subsite/files/homeaffairs-illicit-drug-action-plan.pdf.

[19] Mizen v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCAFC 84 at [73]- [75].

[20] Main v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 446 at [30].

[21] Re MBBG and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] ARTA 53 at [80]-[86].

[22] FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185 (FYBR) at [69]-[70].

[23] FYBR at [67] and [92]-[93].

[24] NBMZ v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCAFC 38; (2014) 220 FCR 1 at [3], [9] and [10]; Taulahi v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) 246 FCR 146 at [84] and [88].

[25] See also s 46(1)(d) of the Migration Act.

[26] See 11A of the Migration Act.

[27] CMP26 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 480 at [58].