1. Mrs A has provided written statements and gave evidence at the hearing. Mrs A spoke of the challenges of caring for both the Applicant's children on her own.[2] The Applicant has not met with his children since his imprisonment, and she has observed the emotional toll the Applicant's absence has had on their son.
2. Mrs A remains committed to the Applicant and is cautious but sanguine about the Applicant's prospects of reform and the resumption of their marital relationship. She said the offending and period during which the Applicant has been in prison and detention had been difficult but rebuilding a healthy relationship with the Applicant would be positive for their son. She decided in November 2024 to amend the AVO to allow them to reconnect and for their family to 'begin healing'.
3. In a statement she wrote that their separation had taught the Applicant the value of sobriety and his responsibility as a father. She has witnessed a transformation in the Applicant and has observed him continue to grow spiritually and emotionally. She believes the Applicant can perform a positive role in teaching his children to make the right choices in life and understand the serious consequences of poor decisions. She also believes that their children will benefit from having the Applicant stay as it can help provide financially for their future and remove the constraints of living on a single income.
4. The Applicant has maintained daily contact with his wife and their children by phone and facetime. The share prayer over the phone which brings a sense of unity and peace to their home. She has visited the Applicant twice in detention. She would have visited more often, but is time limited. They also decided it is in the best interests of their children they do not visit their father in detention, fearing it may be overwhelming and distressing for them to see him in that environment.
5. Mrs A's father has passed away and her mother has dementia, and she has no close family she can rely on outside the Applicant. Singlehandedly raising a family has been a draining experience.
6. Should the Applicant return to the community, Mrs A plans to reintegrate him back into her and her children's lives slowly and cautiously. At first, the Applicant will live with a friend while he re-establishes himself and they work to rebuild their family. She believes a gradual approach will help make the transition more comfortable and natural for their children.

1. The Applicant's father Joni Qoroya provided a statement in which he said he supports his son's application, and he has witnessed good in his son despite his mistakes. Mr Qorova has observed his son taking full responsibility for his actions and showing genuine remorse. He believes he has worked hard to improve himself, manage his anger and build healthy relationships. His son is committed to his wife and two children. The Applicant will have his father's support as he goes about rebuilding his life.
2. Stiven Kotevski is a former colleague of the Applicant. He provided statements of support and gave evidence at the hearing. He considers the Applicant trustworthy and respectful and to have taken responsibility for his actions. He believes the Applicant is a good friend who loves his family.
3. In giving his evidence, it became clear that Mr Kotevski was unaware of the Applicant's offending against his wife and son. Having been made informed of the offending, he maintained that his experience of the Applicant was of him being a good person and supportive friend.
4. Filikesa Kamotu has provided a support letter in which he states he has known the Applicant since 2020 having me him playing rugby union. He is also acquainted with the Applicant's family. He observed the Applicant consistently demonstrated strong character, humility, respect for others and a genuine desire to improve himself. He considers him a loyal friend and a devoted family man.
5. Mr Kamotu expressed confidence that the Applicant will be able to rebuild his relationship with his family and is committed to providing him with accommodation and ongoing support as he transitions back into society.[3]
6. The Rev Shalen Sharma, Senior Pastor at the Lighthouse Christian Centre, has provided a statement and gave evidence at the hearing. Mr Sharma has known the Applicant since he was 4 years old. He spoke to the Applicant's good family and Christian values. He says the Applicant is of 'humanitarian nature' and well respected by members of his church, and that the church community will support him upon his release.[4] Mr Sharma is prepared to mentor the Applicant, and they had agreed to meet regularly should he be released.

1. A psychological report on the Applicant has been prepared by Mindwise Health and Wellbeing psychologist Billel Rababi. Mr Rababi's report was compiled following a mental health examination during which the Applicant was reported to be candid and forthcoming about his experiences. Mr Rababi reports the Applicant acknowledged his offending occurred during periods of alcohol and substance abuse. In relation to his history of drug and alcohol use, Mr Rababi writes:

Mr. Uliigaloa advised that he began smoking marijuana at the age of 15, often hiding it from his father. However, after his father left in 2004, this habit became daily. He stated that his cannabis use caused him to attend school only once a week, often smoking up to 15 to 20 joints per day. When he arrived in Australia in 2016, Mr. Uliigaloa advised that he only smoked cannabis on occasion. He explained that smoking cannabis helped him emotionally, allowing him to suppress negative thoughts and beliefs, thereby minimizing all the bad thoughts." > > Between the ages of 18 and 20, Mr. Uliigaloa advised that he was addicted to sniffing glue. Mr. Uliigaloa advised alcohol was also a significant issue for hm, as it had been present in his childhood. He stated that three of his maternal uncles suffered from alcohol dependence, and his paternal grandfather also struggled with alcohol dependence before his death. > > As a child, Mr. Uliigaloa advised that he used to mix methylated spirits with water, as his family was reliant on alcohol but could not afford to buy it. As he began working, he started consuming alcohol consistently, particularly while working at the hotel, where he consumed alcohol during his shifts. > > Upon arriving in Australia, Mr. Uliigaloa found himself consuming excessive amounts of alcohol, sometimes up to one case of 24 beer cans and a bottle of wine in a single day. He advised that he had little control over this behaviour, and it became an addiction. Despite attempts to quit or reduce his alcohol intake, Mr. Uliigaloa stated that he was unable to stop drinking, and it became a daily habit. Although his wife encouraged him to seek alcohol counselling, Mr. Uliigaloa denied that it was a problem, as he believed it to be normal. He now understands that alcohol addiction played a significant role in his problems and his denial of the issue. > > Mr. Uliigaloa advised that he now recognizes the negative impact alcohol addiction has had on his life and acknowledges that he was addicted. He has been [sic] abstained from alcohol since March 2023.

2. Mr Rababi also considered the Applicant's mental health history. He reports the Applicant advised that mental health was not recognised as an illness in Fiji. He also states that alcohol was used as a means of coping with life stresses, depression and anxiety. Consequently, the Applicant reported he did not recognise the impact of his mental health challenges earlier in life and struggled to seek professional support. It was only when he entered custody that the Applicant had an opportunity to reflect on this mental health through counselling and various workshops, which enabled him to develop insight into his psychological state. Mr Rababi reports the Applicant now recognises the importance of addressing his mental health issues and plans to continue psychological treatment with him.
3. Mr Rababi writes that the Applicant expressed feelings of sadness and regret regarding his past but remains motivated to pursue further personal development and improvement. He reports the Applicant demonstrated a strong level of insight into his mental health, acknowledging the negative impact of his past decisions and alcohol use. He also highlighted the positive change he had made particularly through his commitment to faith, his current sobriety and healthier outlook on life.
4. Mr Rababi opines that the Applicant's reported symptoms meet the DSM-V diagnostic criteria for Major Depressive Disorder, Unspecified Trauma and Stressor Related Disorder, and Alcohol Use Disorder in sustained remission. The Applicant completed the Beck Anxiety Inventory which indicated the Applicant's anxiety was moderate to severe.
5. The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), used to assess alcohol consumption patterns, dependence and related problems among adults, indicated a high risk of dependency on alcohol.

Primary Consideration 1: Protection of the Australian Community

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

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

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

Nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct to date

1. On 23 June 2021 the Applicant was found guilty of Drive with high range PCA at the Port Kembla Local Court for which he was fined $600, subject to a 12-month community corrections order (CCO), and disqualified from driving for 18 months.
2. On 22 December 2021 he was convicted of C_ommon assault (DV) - T2_ and given a 12-month conditional release order.
3. On 22 December 2021 he was convicted of C_ommon assault (DV) - T2_ and given a 12-month conditional release order. On 4 May 2023 the Applicant was convicted by the Wollongong Local Court of Drive while licence cancelled - 2nd+off and disqualified from driving for six months.
4. On 6 June 2023 the Applicant was convicted in the Sutherland Local Court of Contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic), Stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc harm (domestic) and Reckless wounding (DV) and sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 16 months with a non-parole period of 10 months, which was later reduced to 8 months on appeal.
5. On 27 November 2023 the Applicant was convicted of two counts of Contravene Prohibition/Restriction in AVO (Domestic) and given a conditional release order of 6 months.
6. Regarding the December 2021 common assault conviction, the NSW police facts sheet records that on 15 December 2021 the Applicant returned home from being with his friends and work. He went inside the house and he and his wife began to have a heated verbal argument over how the Applicant was going to get to work the next day.[5]
7. The argument escalated and his wife contacted 000 for assistance. She went to the front door while the Applicant was still yelling at her. The Applicant grabbed hold of his wife by her throat for approximately 20 seconds and let go of her when he heard his 2-year-old child crying. The Applicant took possession of his wife's mobile phone while she was on the phone to police and terminated the call.
8. The conviction on 6 June 2023 followed an incident in which the Applicant verbally abused his wife, threatened her with harm, and recklessly wounded his minor son.
9. In sentencing the Applicant in the Sutherland Local Court, Magistrate Donnelly said that the Applicant had gotten into an argument about money with his wife. He wanted $150 in cash withdrawn and given to him and told his wife to go to the ATM to get the money. The argument continued and his wife was afraid of being hit so she went to the bedroom and transferred the money to a joint bank account. The Applicant followed her and threatened her if she did not go and get the money. His wife agreed to go and get the money and picked up their 5-year-old son and put him onto her hip and began to walk towards the back door of the house.
10. Before she reached the door, the Applicant approached her and raised one of his fists as though he was going to hit her. However, instead of hitting her he lowered his fist again. His wife asked if he was going to hit her, and he swung his right hand towards the side of her body on which she was carrying her son. When the Applicant swung his hand he was carrying a fork he had been eating his dinner with. The fork struck the child in the back of his right calf causing injury. Upon realising the child was bleeding, his wife went and took their other child from the bedroom. She said to the Applicant that he had cut his son and he was bleeding. His wife said she was taking the child to hospital where he was treated.
11. His Honour stated that on any view this was a very ugly and violent domestic violence incident. He also noted that despite the Applicant's very limited criminal history, he was subject to an AVO at the time and the purpose of the AVO was to protect the victim of the offences and the people she lived with.[6]
12. The Applicant was convicted of very serious domestic violence offences in December 2021 and June 2023. The victims of the offending were his wife and young son. The seriousness of his conduct is also reflected in the fact that he was sentenced to a lengthy term of imprisonment in June 2023 of 16 months, with a non-parole period reduced to 8 months on appeal.
13. The frequency of the Applicant's criminal conduct is concerning as the domestic violence offences occurred in a period of less than 2 years. I note that the Applicant committed the offences in March 2023 when he was subject to an AVO. The offending history also includes two separate driving related offences and breach of an AVO, which indicate a disregard for the law.
14. I consider that there was an escalation in the seriousness of the Applicant's offending, with the March 2023 offences resulting in physical injury to his child. Crimes of a violent nature against women and children are to be considered very serious.
15. Overall, the Applicant's offending must be viewed very seriously.

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

Paragraph 8.1.2 of the Direction provides in part:[7]

In considering the need to protect the Australian community (including individuals, groups or institutions) from harm, decision-makers should have regard to the Government's view that the Australian community's tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. Some conduct and the harm that would be caused, if it were to be repeated, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable.

In assessing the risk that may be posed by the non-citizen to the Australian community, decision-makers must have regard to, cumulatively:

a) the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct; and

b) the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account:

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

1. The potential harm caused by further acts of violence or drink driving by the Applicant is significant. Similar offending may result in serious physical and psychological harm to members of the Australian community including children.
2. The Applicant acknowledges the seriousness of his offending and maintains his contrition and guilty plea reflect his true character and demonstrate insight and commitment to addressing his offending. In sentencing the Applicant on 6 June 2023, the court noted that he presented as contrite and had completed courses in prison. He also presented a letter of apology to the court and to his wife.[8]
3. A sentencing assessment report prepared in May 2023 states the Applicant admitted to excessive drinking. Although he was not under the influence of alcohol at the time of the offending, the author identified it as an aggravating factor towards his poor anger management. The report notes his limited prior offending history and his insight into his offending and concludes the Applicant was a medium - low risk of reoffending according to the Level of Service Inventory - Revised (LSI - R).[9]
4. In terms of rehabilitation, the Applicant has attended courses including domestic violence programs, understanding addiction, domestic violence awareness and anger management techniques.[10] An email from MindSpot Executive Director Nick Titov dated 28 May 2025 confirms the Applicant joined the Wellbeing Course which helps people access support information and skills to manage symptoms of anxiety and depression.
5. He has also participated in counselling and Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. In letter dated 22 April 2025, AODS psychologist Tegan Gledhill confirms the Applicant's participation in five telehealth sessions of psychological support. She writes that the Applicant had been reliable and consistent in his attendance, demonstrated strong insight into his past substance abuse, the impact on his family and is committed to his ongoing sobriety with over two years of abstinence.
6. Darelle Williams is coordinator at the Watershed Day Program and provided a letter confirming that the Applicant had accessed treatment for his alcohol and substance use through the Smart Recovery Training Program. The six-week treatment program introduces participants to a positive and productive way of life without having to resort to the use of drugs or alcohol. The Applicant began the treatment on 10 July 2024 and had attended further meetings during which he made a positive contribution and had supportive interactions with other participants and staff.[11]
7. The Applicant says he now has a better understanding of the triggers for his offending behaviour and unhealthy coping mechanisms. He has learnt techniques to de-escalate issues and calm himself when he is angry.
8. In his report Mr Rababi concurs that the Applicant's risk of recidivism will continue to decrease as long as he remains sober and continues to treat his mental health. He writes that throughout an 8-month period of counselling with Ellen Callaghan of IHMS, she consistently reported that the Applicant was polite, cooperative, goal oriented and consistently devoted to his faith.
9. Mr Rababi cites protective factors including the Applicant's Christian faith and regular prayer, aspirations to become a pastor, SMART recovery, regular physical activity, drug and alcohol counselling and rehabilitation courses focused on domestic violence and anger management. He has developed an alcohol relapse prevention plan and the Applicant has agreed to continue outpatient treatment in line with this plan:

Mr. Uliigaloa to continue ongoing psychological treatment over the next twelve (12) months. Individual Psychological Sessions should initially be scheduled, and once further improvement is seen, the period between sessions will extend, as determined by the treating professional. If further treatment is warranted, this will continue. > > Mr. Uliigaloa to undergo Trauma Based Cognitive Behaviour Therapy; (aimed at treating the trauma, anxiety, depression, and emotional regulation) > > Dialectical Behavioural Therapy to improve emotional regulation and emotional resilience therapy to also focus on;

• Identifying high risk situations that can emotional dysregulation
• Learning to recognise when negative emotions are building up
• Finding a way to reduce exposure to high-risk situations
• Mindfulness training and skills to help cope with stress; this will take the form of being provided with stress reducing techniques and problem-solving skills.

Mr Uliigaloa to continue outpatient alcohol counselling and support for 12 months > > Mr. Uliigaloa to explore the suitability of psychiatric assessment and subsequent medicinal support, with his general Practitioner (GP).

1. The Applicant presented at the hearing as credible, and I accept his expressions of remorse and regret are sincere. The evidence suggests he is a person with two different sides. He is well intentioned, hardworking and earnest when sober, but can become aggressive, belligerent, intimidating and violent when he is affected by alcohol or its aftereffects. He now concedes he is an alcoholic who used alcohol to escape his problems. The evidence strongly supports his offending is intimately tied to his use of alcohol and his resolute commitment not to drink again is reassuring.
2. The Applicant is now two years sober and committed to proactively addressing his behaviour through counselling and treatment. His wife gave evidence that she will not allow him to see his children if he continues drinking, and he understands and accepts that if he does not maintain his sobriety, he will no longer be part of the lives of his wife and children.
3. The Applicant has identified the primary cause of his offending and demonstrated commitment to not drinking. There are meaningful protective factors which will help him maintain his sobriety. Based on her evidence, I am satisfied Mrs A is committed to the Applicant but will not allow him to place her or her children at risk of further harm from the Applicant. For these reasons, I am satisfied that there is a low risk that the Applicant will reoffend.

Conclusion as to the protection of the Australian community

1. The Applicant's offending is very serious and offending of a similar nature in the future may cause significant harm to the Australian community. I have found there is a low risk that the Applicant will reoffend based on his insight into the drivers of his offending and the work he has done to address his behaviour. I consider this primary consideration weighs heavily against revoking the cancellation of the Applicant's visa, primarily on account of his serious offending to date.

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

1. Paragraph 4(1) of Direction 110 defines family violence as violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person's family or causes the family member to be fearful. Paragraph 8.2(2) provides that this consideration is relevant where a non-citizen has been convicted of an offence involving family violence or there in information or evidence from independent and authoritative sources indicating the non-citizen is or has been involved in the perpetration of family violence.
2. As previously outlined , the Applicant has convictions related to a physical assault on his wife, reckless wounding of his son and breaching AVOs. I find that he has engaged in conduct which meets the definition of family violence provided in the Direction.
3. The family violence conduct occurred in separate incidents, and the sentencing of the Applicant reflects conduct which escalated in seriousness. It is also relevant that the family violence included incidents in the presence of the Applicant's minor child. There is no doubt that both his wife and son would have been fearful because of his conduct.
4. The family violence conduct is very serious, though I note the Applicant has accepted responsibility for his conduct, apologised to his family and developed insight into the conduct through rehabilitation and counselling. I asked why the first incident was not a wakeup call, he explained that after his court appearance, he went on living his life in denial of his alcoholism and did not seek any treatment. I consider the Applicant has made considerable progress in understanding the effect of his family violent conduct on his wife and children and is genuine in his remorse.
5. I find that the primary consideration of family violence committed by the Applicant weighs heavily against exercising the discretion to revoke the cancellation of the visa.

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

1. I am required to consider the impact of the decision on the Applicant's immediate family members in Australia, where those family members are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely. I am also required to consider the strength, nature and duration of any other ties that the Applicant has to the Australian community having regard to:

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

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

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

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

1. The Applicant's wife and two children are in Australia. I am satisfied that the Applicant has developed meaningful social ties to other members of the Australian community.
2. In his personal circumstances form the Applicant submits he has made a positive contribution to Australia through his employment which includes building house frames, council pickups, handling and delivery of goods, warehousing, factory work in building suppliers, forklift driver and scaffolder. He said that his removal from the community would deprive the community on having an honest reliable dedicated and hard-working person. The Applicant has contributed to the community through gainful employment.
3. I acknowledge that the Applicant's residence in Australia was relatively short, having permanently entered the country age 30 in 2016. His first offence occurred in 2021, within 5 years of his arrival in Australia.
4. The Applicant's wife gave evidence that his absence has been difficult for her, and I expect that non-revocation of the cancellation decision would present emotional and practical challenges in terms of caring for their children, managing her finances and the prospect of reestablishing their family.
5. In total, the Applicant's ties to the Australian community weigh strongly in favour of revocation and are afforded substantial weight.

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

1. Paragraph 8.4 of the Direction requires decision-makers to decide whether the cancellation is, or is not, in the best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision.[12] This consideration applies only if the child is under 18 years old at the time of the decision. In considering the best interests of each child, the factors that must be considered where relevant include:[13]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. The Applicant has a son and a daughter who reside in Australia, and he contends that his removal would be profoundly detrimental on the children's psychological wellbeing and overall lifestyle.
2. The Applicant is close to his children and speaks to them every day. He said that he and his son share a special bond. His son is reportedly lonely at times and sad because he misses his father, and cries and asks when he is coming home. The Applicant's daughter is reportedly aware of the absence of a familiar face. The Applicant fears that his continued absence will be detrimental to both children and lead to them being bullied at school. Although he is permitted to see the children, both he and his wife have agreed not to have them visit him while being held in immigration detention as doing so may be stressful for them.
3. It is relevant that the Applicant's children have been exposed to family violence, and his son was a victim of his criminal conduct. By way of limited mitigation, I accept that the Applicant did not set out to intentionally cause physical harm to his son.
4. The Applicant's wife has parental responsibility for both children, but has made clear that his absence has been extremely challenging for her as she lacks outside help and is financially constrained without his support.
5. The Applicant's wife has two children from a previous relationship, one of who is a minor. The Applicant has not provided evidence of his relationship with the child, but his wife indicated they do not maintain a close relationship.
6. I accept that both the Applicant's minor children will benefit from having the cancellation revoked as it will enable him to provide financially for his family and play a positive role in their future. I am mindful of the Applicant's prior conduct included acts of family violence, but I place considerable weight on the Applicant's wife's evidence that his remaining in Australia will be beneficial for his family, and the views of the Applicant's son. This consideration weighs heavily in favour of revoking the cancellation of the visa.

Primary Consideration 5: Expectations of the Australian community

1. Paragraph 8.5 of the Direction relevantly provides:[14]

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

1. Paragraph 8.5(3) of Direction 110 states that these expectations apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
2. It is not for the Tribunal to determine for itself the expectations of the Australian community by reference to an applicant's circumstances or evidence about those expectations. Rather the Tribunal must give effect to the 'norm' stipulated in the Direction.
3. This consideration is about the expectations of the Australian community as a whole, and in this respect, decision-makers should proceed on the basis of the Government's views as articulated in the Direction, without independently assessing the community's expectations in the particular case.
4. The Applicant has failed to meet the Australian community's expectation that visa holders obey its laws.
5. Having regard to the Direction and the Applicant's offending, this consideration weighs heavily against revocation.

Legal consequence of decision under section 501 or 501CA

1. Paragraph 9.1 of Direction 110 states that decision-makers should be mindful that unlawful non-citizens are, in accordance with section 198 of the Act, liable to be removed from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable, and in the meantime, detention under section 189, noting also that section 197C(1) of the Act provides that for the purposes of section 198, it is irrelevant whether Australia has non-refoulement obligations in respect of an unlawful non-citizen.
2. The Applicant has made claims in relation to his health which he submits are relevant to this consideration. I have taken his health conditions into account when considering the impediments he may face should he return to Fiji.
3. As there is no claim and no evidence to suggest that Australia's non-refoulement obligations are enlivened in respect of the Applicant, this consideration weighs neutrally.

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

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

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

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

1. The Applicant is an adult who appears in relatively good health. However, he suffers from shortness of breath, which he understands may be indicative of an underlying heart condition. He has been diagnosed with sleep apnoea, for which he requires a CPAP machine. He also plans to continue treatment of his mental health and addiction issues.
2. The Applicant stated that returning to Fiji would be difficult as his parents and brother no longer live in Fiji. His brother's wife and children now reside with the Applicant's grandfather. He expects that in Fiji he would unemployed and without accommodation.
3. Ms Rababi states that the potential deportation of the Applicant to Fiji is concerning as it threatens the stability of the Applicant's mental health and ongoing recovery. He opines that separation from his wife and children would exacerbate his feelings of abandonment which had been central to his psychological struggles throughout his life. Mr Rababi believes a lack of access to adequate mental health support in Fiji, and stigmatisation of mental health conditions, may impede his ongoing treatment and rehabilitation efforts.
4. Should the Applicant require medical care in Fiji, it will be available to him. However, I note the DFAT Country Information Report states that in practice, mental healthcare may not be available.[15] Having spent his formative years in Fiji and having resided in that country until 2017, I do not anticipate he would face significant difficulties re-integrating. However, I accept that he may experience some practical challenges reestablishing himself without the support of his parents or brother in that country. He would also be expected to suffer psychological distress in the absence of his wife and children.
5. Overall, I find this consideration weighs moderately in favour of revocation.

1. The primary considerations of the protection of the Australian community and family violence weigh in favour of the cancellation decision. However, the Applicant's strong prospects of rehabilitation and the steps he has taken to address the factors which contributed to his conduct mitigate the weight afforded to these primary considerations. The expectations of the Australian community weigh against revocation and are afforded considerable weight.
2. The best interests of the Applicant's children weigh in favour of revocation. The Applicant's ties to the Australian community weigh in favour of revocation, and are afforded considerable weight owing to the impact his removal would have on his wife. The impediments the Applicant would be expected to face weigh in favour of revoking the cancellation of his visa, and are afforded moderate weight.
3. This is a finely balanced decision. I am required to consider the evidence of rehabilitation at the time of the decision. The Applicant has used the extended period during which he was in detention to consolidate his rehabilitation and progress the rebuilding of his relationship with his wife and children. On balance, the correct and preferable decision is to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant's visa.

1. For the reasons outlined above, the Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution decides that the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa is revoked.

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