1. Section 501(3A) of the Act, read in conjunction with ss 501(6) and 501(7), obliges the Minister to cancel a visa granted to a non-citizen if the Minister is satisfied the person does not pass the character test. This includes if the non-citizen has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more. The Minister is required under s 501CA(3) of the Act to provide notice of the cancellation decision as soon as practicable and invite the affected person to respond. Under s 496 of the Act, the Minister may delegate these powers.
2. Section 501CA(4) allows for the revocation of a decision under s 501(3A) of the Act. Relevantly, s 501CA(4) states:

(4) The Minister may revoke the original decision if:

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

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

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

1. Section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act requires the Tribunal to examine the factors for and against revoking a mandatory cancellation decision. If the Tribunal is satisfied that the cancellation should be revoked following that evaluative exercise, the Tribunal must revoke the original visa cancellation decision.
2. Section 501(6) of the Act defines the 'character test.' Relevantly, in part, s 501(6) states:

(6) For the purposes of this section, a person does not pass the character test if:

(a) the person has a substantial criminal record (as defined by subsection (7)); or........

1. Section 501(7) provides that a person has a 'substantial criminal record' if the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.
2. If an Applicant fails the character test, the issue to be determined under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act is whether the discretion to revoke the cancellation decision is enlivened by the Tribunal's satisfaction that there is 'another reason' to do so.[10] In Plaintiff M1/2021,[11] the High Court referred to how representations made under s 501CA(4) of the Act should be approached:
   1. Section 501CA(4) of the Migration Act confers a wide discretionary power on a decision maker to revoke a decision to cancel a visa held by a non-citizen if satisfied that there is "another reason" why that decision should be revoked. The statutory scheme for determining whether the decision-maker is satisfied that there is "another reason" for revoking a cancellation decision commences with a former visa holder making representations. In determining whether they are satisfied that there is "another reason" for revoking a cancellation decision, the decision-maker undertakes the assessment by reference to the case made by the former visa holder by their representations.

25. It is also well-established that the requisite level of engagement by the decision-maker with the representations must occur within the bounds of rationality and reasonableness. What is necessary to comply with the statutory requirement for a valid exercise of power will necessarily depend on the nature, form, and content of the representations. The requisite level of engagement - the degree of effort needed by the decision-maker - will vary, among other things, according to the length, clarity, and degree of relevance of the representations. The decision-maker is not required to consider claims that are not clearly articulated, or which do not clearly arise on the materials before them. (Citations omitted).

1. On 7 June 2024, Direction No.110 - Visa refusal and cancellation under s 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s 501CA ('Direction 110') came into effect. Direction 110 sets out the principles that provide a framework within which a decision maker should approach the task of deciding whether to exercise the discretion to refuse to grant a visa or revoke mandatory cancellation decisions. It is binding on the Tribunal in performing its functions or exercising powers under s 501 of the Act.
2. Paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110 provides a framework within which decision-makers should approach their task, including whether to revoke a mandatory cancellation.
3. The primary considerations in making a decision under s 501(1), 501(2) or 501CA(4) are detailed in paragraph 8 of Part 2 of Direction 110:

(1) protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;

(2) whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence;

(3) the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia;

(4) the best interests of minor children in Australia;

(5) expectations of the Australian community.

1. Paragraph 9 of Direction 110 details other considerations where relevant, that must be considered. These are:

a) legal consequences of the decision; > > b) extent of impediments, if removed; > > c) impact on Australian business interests.

2. A decision maker is required to give greater weight to primary considerations under paragraph 8 than to other considerations pursuant to paragraph 9. In Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection,[12] Colvin J when considering an earlier Direction stated:[13]

'Direction 65 makes clear that an evaluation is required in each case as to the weight to be given to the 'other considerations' (including non‑refoulement obligations). It requires both primary and other considerations to be given 'appropriate weight'. Direction 65 does provide that, generally, primary considerations should be given greater weight. They are primary in the sense that absent some factor that takes the case out of that which pertains 'generally' they are to be given greater weight. However, Direction 65 does not require that the other considerations be treated as secondary in all cases. Nor does it provide that primary considerations are 'normally' given greater weight. Rather, Direction 65 concerns the appropriate weight to be given to both 'primary' and 'other considerations'. In effect, it requires an inquiry as to whether one or more of the other considerations should be treated as being a primary consideration or the consideration to be afforded greatest weight in the particular circumstances of the case because it is outside the circumstances that generally apply.'

(a) does the Applicant pass the character test, as defined in s 501 of the Act? If not; > > (b) is there another reason why the original decision should be revoked? > > Documents

2. The following statements were provided to the Tribunal in support of the Applicant's application for review:

(a) Applicant's statement dated 21 December 2024.[14]

(b) Various photos with Applicant's comments.[15]

(c) Applicant's written statements.[16]

(d) Applicant certificates.[17]

(e) Statement by Summa Brooks dated 26 August 2024.[18]

(f) Statement by Rebecca Chow dated 17 January 2025.[19]

(g) Statutory Declaration by Kelly Marie Bradnam dated 29 January 2025.[20]

(h) Statement by Nathan Grant Hazelgrove dated 21 May 2025.[21]

(i) Statement by Brandon Lee Kayser dated 6 February 2025.[22]

(j) Statement by Olivia Keen undated.[23]

(k) Statement by Nissa Nicole McAteer dated 6 February 2025.[24]

(l) Statement by Shanna Collins dated 3 July 2025.[25]

(m) Various photos.[26]

(a) Applicant's application for review.[27]

(b) Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues, and Contentions dated 7 October 2025.[28]

(c) G Documents.

(d) Hearing Book Volumes 1 and 2.

1. The Tribunal was provided with a copy of the Nationally Coordinated Criminal History Check dated 9 July 2025[29] detailing the Applicant's criminal history that commenced in 2010.
2. On 19 May 2010 the Beenleigh Magistrates Court convicted the Applicant of Producing Dangerous Drugs and Possess Utensils or Pipes etc that had been used for which the Applicant was sentenced to a fine for each offence.[30]
3. On 12 August 2014 the Gladstone Magistrates Court convicted the Applicant of Fail to Properly Dispose of Needle and Syringe and sentenced the Applicant to a fine.[31]
4. In 2015 the Gladstone Magistrates Court convicted the Applicant of the following offences:[32]

(a) 22 April 2015 - Failure to Appear in Accordance with Undertaking and sentenced the Applicant to a fine.

(b) 3 August 2015 - Failure to Appear in Accordance with Undertaking and sentenced the Applicant to a fine.

(c) 28 October 2015 - Failure to Appear in Accordance with Undertaking and sentenced the Applicant to a fine.

(d) 28 October 2015 - Contravention of a Domestic Violence Order and sentenced to a six months' probation.

(e) 28 October 2025 - Breach Order imposed on 3 August 2015 and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 1 month.

1. On 25 May 2016 the Beaudesert Magistrates Court[33] convicted the Applicant of the following offences: Breach of a Probation Order made 28 October 2025; Breaching Community Based Order and was sentenced to a fine.[34]
2. On 16 December 2016 the Ipswich Magistrates Court convicted the Applicant of Drunk and Disorderly in premises, Refused Entry to Licensed Premises, Assault or Obstruct Police Officer Contravene Direction or Requirement Licensed Premises and sentenced to a fine_.[35]_
3. On 19 April 2017 the Gladstone Magistrates Court convicted the Applicant of Contravention of Domestic Violence Order and sentenced the Applicant to a fine.[36]
4. On 20 November 2018 the Holland Park Magistrates Court convicted the Applicant of Unauthorized Dealing with Shop Goods x 4 counts and Unlawful Possession of Suspected Stolen Property and sentenced the Applicant to a fine in respect of each charge.[37]
5. On 17 December 2019 the Richlands Magistrates Court convicted the Applicant of Possess Property Suspected of having been used in connection with a Drug Offence and was sentenced to a fine.[38]
6. On 13 January 2020 the Holland Park Magistrates Court convicted the Applicant of Stealing and sentenced the Applicant to a fine.[39]
7. On 17 April 2020 the Richlands Magistrates Court convicted the Applicant of Failure to Appear in Accordance with Undertaking x 2 counts and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 14 days, suspended for a period of 12 months.
8. On 5 June 2020 the Richlands Magistrates Court convicted the Applicant of Unlawful Possession of Controlled Drug; Enter Premises and Commit Indictable Offence and Serious Assault of Police Officer by biting spitting etc x 2 counts and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 6 months.[40]
9. On 15 January 2021 the Beenleigh Magistrates Court convicted the Applicant of Stealing; Wilful damage x 2 counts; Trespass - Entering or Remaining in Dwelling or Yard; x 2 counts; Obstruct Police Officer and was sentenced to a fine.[41]
10. On 5 July 2022 the Beaudesert Magistrates Court convicted the Applicant of Contravention of Domestic Violence Order and was sentenced to probation for a period of 9 months.[42] The victim of the offence was the Applicant's daughter-in-law. The statement of facts from Queensland Police[43] provide that while at the victim's residence, the Applicant started an argument with the victim and punched her with a closed fist and pulled her hair.
11. On 19 April 2024 the Beenleigh Magistrates Court convicted the Applicant of the index offending being Dangerous Operation of a vehicle and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 18 months. The Applicant was also convicted on 19 April 2024 of Contravention of Domestic Violence Order (Aggravated Offence), Trespass - unlawfully enter or remain in yard or place of business, Wilful damage, Stealing x 15 counts and Failure to appear in accordance with undertaking x 2 counts.[44]
12. In the sentencing remarks[45] the Magistrate noted that the Applicant came before the court with a total of six previous unlicensed driving offences, including the Applicant's conviction on 31 July 2023, in circumstances where she was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle offence. In addition, the Magistrate noted that the Applicant had committed 'a large number of offences of dishonesty.' [46] The Magistrate also noted that despite having been released on bail, the Applicant failed to comply with her bail conditions by continuing to commit further dishonesty offences.[47]
13. As to the circumstances of the index offending the Magistrate stated:

The police obtained CCTV footage of the incident, and they observed your vehicle approaching at speed from Ashton Street, causing the victim to run across the road to avoid being struck. He has continued walking up Jacaranda Avenue. You stopped your vehicle. There is a short conversation. The victim can be seen at the intersection of Jacaranda and Ashton, where your vehicle has entered Jacaranda, proceeded to drive against the flow of traffic towards the victim. He is then seen running from your vehicle onto Ashton Street. You were observed conducting a U-turn and returning towards Jacaranda Avenue. It is described as a cat-and-mouse scenario with the victim having to jump out of the way of your vehicle numerous times.[48]

The most serious charge you face today is the dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, and it is a serious offence. Whether you were at speed or not, you went across onto the wrong lane of traffic. You were driving in the vicinity of another person, and, really, you put yourself at risk. You put that complainant at risk. You put other members of the community at risk. All it would have taken is a car to be driving on that side of the road, and there may have been an innocent victim.[49]

1. Finally, on 2 August 2024 the Richlands Magistrates Court convicted the Applicant of Breach of Bail x 3 counts; Failure to Appear in Accordance with an Undertaking and Contravention of Domestic Violence order and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three months. In the sentencing remarks the Magistrate noted that the Applicant's criminal history had become worse and that the Applicant had reoffended soon after being released on parole.[50]

1. The character test is defined under s 501(6) of the Act. It provides that a person does not pass the character test if they have a 'substantial criminal record' as defined in s 501(7) of the Act. Relevantly, s 501(7)(c) of the Act provides that a person has a 'substantial criminal record' if they have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more or have been sentenced to two or more terms of imprisonment, where the total of those terms is 12 months or more.[51]
2. In this case, the Applicant was convicted of the index offending and sentenced to an aggregate term of 18 months imprisonment.[52] In circumstances where the Applicant has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than 12 months, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant has a substantial criminal record for the purposes of s 501(6)(a) and s 501(7)(c) of the Act.
3. As a result, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant does not pass the character test and that the requirements of s 501CA(4)(b)(i) are not met. As a result, the Applicant cannot rely on s 501CA(4)(1)(a) of the Act for the cancellation of her visa to be revoked.

Whether there is another reason the visa cancellation decision should be revoked

1. The issue for the Tribunal is, therefore, whether there is another reason the decision to cancel the Applicant's visa should be revoked. The Tribunal is required to have regard to Direction 110 in deciding whether to revoke the cancellation decision.

1. Paragraph 8.1 of Direction 110 provides that when considering the protection of the Australian community, the Tribunal is required to keep in mind that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government.[53] In addition, it provides that the Tribunal give consideration to the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct and the risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in further serious conduct.[54]

1. In considering the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's offending or other serious conduct, the Tribunal is required to consider those factors detailed in paragraph 8.1.1 of Direction 110. The Direction indicates that violent crimes are viewed seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian community.
2. The Minister submits[55] that the Applicant's index offending is very serious for the purposes of paragraph 8.1.1 of Direction 110.[56] The Tribunal notes that the index offending was an act of family violence against the Applicant's former partner. In the sentencing remarks the Magistrate[57] acknowledged the fact that the offence involved domestic violence. The Magistrate referred[58] to the fact that the seriousness of the offence was not diminished by the fact that the victim was not physically harmed.
3. On 19 April 2024, the Applicant was convicted of the index offending and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 18 months.[59] In the sentencing remarks the Magistrate stated that considering the nature of the Applicant's offending, the overall criminality and her criminal history, the only appropriate penalty is one of imprisonment.[60] The imposition of custodial sentences reflects the objective seriousness of the offences involved.[61] To that end, as incarceration is the penalty of last resort in the sentencing hierarchy, the Applicant's prison sentence (regardless of its length) is indicative of the seriousness of the offence. Sentences imposed below the maximum penalties available must still be considered in the context of the inherent seriousness of the Applicant's offending.[62] As a result, the Tribunal accepts that the Applicant's offending is serious.
4. On 5 July 2022, the Applicant was convicted of Contravention of Domestic Violence Order [63] in relation to an incident that occurred between the Applicant and daughter-in-law in which the Applicant started an argument with the victim and punched her with a closed fist and pulled her hair.[64]
5. On 2 August 2024 the Applicant was convicted of Breach of Bail x 3 counts; Failure to Appear in Accordance with an Undertaking and Contravention of Domestic Violence order and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three months ('the August 2024 offences'). In the sentencing remarks the Magistrate noted the significant escalation in the Applicant's offending. It was noted that in circumstances where the Applicant had reoffended soon after her release on parole, her criminal history over the last four years or so had been getting worse, not better.[65]
6. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant's criminal history includes dishonesty charges of stealing and unlawful possession of suspected stolen property together with contravention of domestic violence order and assault or obstruct police officer. As such, she has displayed a complete disregard for authority and the safety and well-being of others in the course of her criminal conduct. As a result, the cumulative effect of the Applicant's offending has resulted in significant expense to the community including the use of police and court resources.[66]
7. Therefore, having considered paragraph 8.1.1 of Direction 110, based on the Applicant's criminal history and the sentencing remarks of the Magistrate in relation to her index offending and the August 2024 offences, the Tribunal finds the nature of the Applicant's conduct to be serious and as such weighs heavily against revocation. As a result, the Tribunal places significant weight on this consideration in favour of affirming the cancellation decision.

1. Paragraph 8.1.2 of the Direction 110 provides that in assessing whether the Applicant represents an unacceptable risk of harm 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 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 information and evidence on the risk of the non­citizen re-offending and any evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since their most recent offence.

2. As such the Tribunal is required to assess the risk posed to the Australian community if the Applicant re-offends, taking into consideration the nature of any harm and its probability. In Tanielu v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection_[67]_ Mortimer J stated that, to determine an unacceptable risk, one must evaluate the consequences of a person re-offending as well as the likelihood of that person engaging in that conduct in the future. The courts have held that past actions are legitimate predictors of future behavior.[68] In Murphy v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA1924 Mortimer J, noted:[69]

'That is, part of the Tribunal's task was to decide not only whether the applicant might engage in further offending conduct if he were permitted to stay, but what level of risk any such conduct might pose to the Australian community, the possible level of violence of the conduct being at least one measure (but not the only measure) of how serious the risk was, or whether the risk should be tolerated.'

3. In Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo_[70]_ the High Court considered the extent to which past events can be a guide to the future. The Court stated:

'Past events are not a certain guide to the future, but in many areas of life proof that events have occurred often provides a reliable basis for determining the probability - high or low - of their recurrence.'

1. Accordingly, in determining the chance of something happening in the future it is necessary to form a conclusion about past events.[71] That is, it is a question of degree what will happen in the future based on past events. In Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo the court held that:[72]

'The extent to which past events are a guide to the future depends on the degree of probability that they have occurred, the regularity with which and the conditions under which they have or probably have occurred and the likelihood that the introduction of new or other events may distort the cycle of regularity....'

1. The Tribunal is required to consider the nature of harm to individuals or the Australian community if the Applicant engages in further criminal or other serious conduct.[73] The Respondent submits that the harm caused by the Applicant's offending is so serious that any risk she may reoffend is unacceptable and should be avoided by removing her from the community.[74]
2. Having considered paragraph 8.1.2(2)(a) of Direction 110, the Tribunal accepts that if the Applicant engaged in the same or similar conduct in the future, she would likely cause serious harm to members of the community including women and children.
3. As to paragraph 8.1.2(2)(b) of Detection 110, the Tribunal is required to have regard to the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in further criminal conduct. The Tribunal is required to consider any information and evidence on the risk of the Applicant reoffending, and any rehabilitation undertaken by the Applicant and or time spent in the community since the Applicant's most recent offence.
4. The Applicant's evidence was that she was born in Christchurch, New Zealand on 10 November 1979. She travelled to Australia in September 1987 when she was 7 years old with her parents and three siblings.[75] The Applicant has two sisters and a brother all of whom live in Queensland. The Applicant's grandparents moved to Australia in 1994, when she was about 14 years old. The Applicant claims that since her arrival in Australia she has lived in Queensland and not departed the country, save for having travelled to the United States for two weeks when she was 21 years old.
5. In the sentencing remarks[76] for the index offending the Magistrate referred to the Applicant's background including that she had been sexually abused from a young age and had suffered domestic violence. The Applicant did not provide any evidence to the Tribunal of her sexual abuse. Her evidence was that she had been a victim of domestic violence but did not provide any specific detail as to the abuse she suffered. The Magistrate, in the absence of evidence to support her claim of domestic violence, did not accept she had been a victim of domestic violence.[77]
6. In addition, the Magistrate accepted the Applicant suffered from some undiagnosed mental health condition.[78] The Applicant's evidence was that she suffers from bipolar and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).[79] However, the Applicant did not provide the Tribunal any evidence of her mental health, such as a psychological or psychologist report. Nevertheless, the Tribunal notes that the Child Safety Services Report (the CSS report)[80] states that the Applicant was assessed by the Rockhampton Hospital as having acquired brain injury (ABI) due to hypoxic injury caused by septic shock. It reports[81] that her previous psychiatrist Dr Raguraman has explained that the Applicant's ABI will have damaged her thinking ability, cognitive organisational skills, planning and judgement. No report by Dr Raguraman was provided to the Tribunal.
7. The CSS report also states[82] that the Applicant has a history of substance dependency issues and engages in polysubstance use inclusive of cannabis, methamphetamine and alcohol use. It notes that the Applicant reports that the effect of her drug use has an impact on her mental health. The report states[83] that the Applicant was identified as having incurred three instances of drug induced psychosis resulting in EEAs and hospitalisation.
8. The Applicant's evidence was that she attended MacGregor State High School and Loganlea State high School.[84] Her evidence was that she was expelled from school for truancy during year 11. She did not attend college or university but claims she completed a receptionist course at Lorraine Martin College, Brisbane.[85] In addition, she claims she has completed a Certificate III in Business Administration, Hairdressing and Medical Administration. Her evidence was that she commenced Certificate III in Individual Support but could not finish it because of her convictions.
9. At the age of 15 the Applicant commenced work at Bi-Lo (Australia), Waterford. The Applicant's son Brandon was born when the Applicant was 18 years of age. After the birth of Brandon, she worked for a year in a chicken factory for Ingham's Chicken.[86] When the Applicant was 23 years old, she worked for Teys Australia, meat processors for approximately 12 months.[87] While she was pregnant with Child L she worked as a dental nurse at the Logan Hospital Dental, QLD Health. Finally, the Applicant claims she worked as a secretary for three months and then as a car detailer for three years.
10. In or about 1996 the Applicant commenced a relationship with Mr N Kayser with whom she had four children. These included two children who have died. On 18 December 2015 the Applicant's daughter, Delorean died of SID at the age of four months.[88] In addition the Applicant had a son, Angel who died stillborn due to anencephaly on 18 December 2023.[89] The Applicant otherwise has three sons aged 27 years, 17 years and 4 years.
11. The Applicant's evidence was that the applicant's youngest son father is Mr B Doran. The Applicant claims she no longer has contact with Mr Doran and he plays no role in Child H''s life.
12. The applicant's sister, Kelly Bradman in her statement confirmed that the Applicant's two youngest children live with her parents who are in their 70's.[90] It was not clear to the Tribunal the circumstances under which they came to live with their grandparents. However, the Tribunal notes that the CSS report refers[91] to the fact that the Applicant's day to day care of and parenting of her youngest son continues to be impacted by her ongoing drug and alcohol use and untreated mental health conditions. The CSS report states[92] that the Applicant needs to engage in AODS programs to assist her to develop an understanding of her drug use and to develop strategies for abstaining from drugs. It reports[93] that if the Applicant fails to engage in such programs and continues to use drugs and alcohol, she will continue to remain a parent who is unable to provide ongoing care and protection to her youngest son.
13. The Applicant's evidence was that she was not able to stay with her children due to the conditions of 'child safety.'[94] She was not able to tell the Tribunal if a formal order had been obtained by Child Services in relation to her children. Nevertheless, it was her evidence that upon being released from custody it was her goal to get in contact with youngest son initially at least 3 days per week and then daily.[95]
14. The Applicant's eldest son has four children. As a result, the Applicant has four grandchildren being T (9), D (8), I (4) and W (10 months). The Applicant has never meet W. On 10 February 2022 the Applicant's daughter-in-law, her eldest son's partner made application to Richlands Magistrates Court for a domestic violence order preventing the Applicant from contacting or approaching her. In breach of the order on 31 March 2022, the Applicant went to her son's home and assaulted his partner. The statement of facts from Queensland Police[96] provide that while at the victim's residence, the Applicant started an argument with the victim and punched her with a closed fist and pulled her hair. On 5 July 2022 the Applicant was convicted of contravening a domestic violence order and sentenced to probation for a period of 9 months.[97]
15. The Queensland Correction Services (QCS) report states that the Applicant commenced using experimental recreational and drugs of dependence when she was an adolescent. In addition, she reported to QCS as having engaged in heavy alcohol consumption for approximately 10 years after the passing of her daughter from SIDS. As a result of her alcohol consumption, she suffered general health issues. It was the Applicant's evidence to the Tribunal that she started using methamphetamines when she was 28 years of age.[98] The QCS report[99] states that she ceased her alcohol consumption due to her health issues but substituted it with methamphetamine. It reports she consumed 0.3g of methamphetamine per day. The Applicant's evidence was that because of her drug use her relationship with Mr Kayser ended in or about 2013. In addition, she claims that because of her drug use she has suffered periods of homelessness.
16. The CSS report[100] notes that the Applicant had completed only 4 drug and alcohol tests since January 2022. On 11 December 2023 the Applicant stated to the Child Safety Services that after her psychosis on 7 September 2023 she was depressed and was using methamphetamine and drinking alcohol. In addition, she advised that she had been drinking daily since 7 September 2023. It was assessed that her drug and alcohol use was affecting her parenting and protective capacity and she was identified as a person who needed to engage in an AODS program to develop an understanding of her drug use and to develop strategies to be able to abstain in the future. On 17 January 2025, the Applicant was provided a Medical Clearance Request from Lives Lived Well requesting that her doctor assist her formulate a detox plan for the purposes of the Applicant's admission to Logan House to help address her issues of dependence, mental health and other issues. However, there was no evidence that the Applicant had presented the letter to her doctor for the purposes of formulating a detox plan or that she had completed such plan. In fact, it was the Applicant's evidence that she had used drugs while in immigration detention and subsequently after her arrival in New Zealand. As such, based on the Applicant's evidence to the Tribunal it appears the Applicant has not undertaken any program to address her use of drugs or any existing mental health issues she claims to suffer.
17. The Tribunal notes that pursuant to paragraph 8.1.2 of Direction 110 in considering the need to protect the Australian community from harm, the Tribunal 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. Further, in assessing the risk that may be posed by the Applicant, the Tribunal must have regard on a cumulative basis to the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community and the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct.
18. In this case the Applicant has claimed that her experience in prison and in detention has made her realise the error of her offending. She claims to be close to her family and expressed a desire to return to Australia to be with her family and to look after her children. However, the Applicant has demonstrated limited insight into her offending. She has continued her use of drugs and alcohol and not actively engaged in programs to help address issues of her drug use or mental health as the basis of her offending. Despite the CSS report[101] that notes the Applicant will remain a parent who is unable to provide ongoing care and protection for her child if she continues to use drugs and alcohol, the Applicant's evidence was that she has continued to use drugs even after her return to New Zealand. In doing so she has demonstrated a complete lack of insight into the basis of her offending and her current circumstances.
19. Finally, the Tribunal notes that the Applicant has consistently display a lack of regard for court orders. Over an extended period, the Applicant has had multiple convictions for failing to comply with undertakings and orders of the court. The Queensland Correction Services Report dated 9 August 2024[102] notes that the Applicant had demonstrated a poor response to community-based orders as evidence by her breach of court and community-based orders and her failure to comply with parole orders.
20. As a result, given that the Applicant's offending appears to be linked to her drug use and mental health, and in circumstances where she has failed to engage in programs as required by CSS together with the Applicant's disregard for court and community-based orders, the Tribunal finds that there is a high risk the Applicant will reoffend if she is released into the Australian community.
21. Accordingly, the Tribunal places significant weight on this primary consideration in favour of affirming the decision under review.

1. The Tribunal notes that paragraph 5.2(8) of Direction 110 provides:

'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 noncitizen does not pose a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.'

1. Direction 110 defines family violence to mean 'violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person's family (the family member) or causes the family member to be fearful'. The examples of behaviour that may constitute family violence include assault and a sexual assault or other sexually abusive behaviour.[103]
2. Paragraph 8.2 of Direction 110 provides that the Australian Government has serious concerns about conferring on non-citizens who engage in family violence the privilege of entering or remaining in Australia. The Tribunal notes that paragraph 8.2(2) of Direction 110 provides that this consideration is relevant in circumstances where there is information from independent and authoritative sources indicating that the non-citizen has been involved in the perpetration of family violence and the non-citizen has been afforded procedural fairness.
3. In assessing the seriousness of the family violence, paragraph 8.2(3) of Direction 110 provides that the Tribunal must consider:

(a) the frequency of the non-citizen's conduct and/or whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness;

b) the cumulative effect of repeated acts of family violence;

c) rehabilitation achieved at time of decision since the person's last known act of family violence, including:

1. the extent to which the person accepts responsibility for their family violence related conduct;
2. the extent to which the non-citizen understands the impact of their behaviour on the abused and witness of that abuse (particularly children);
3. efforts to address factors which contributed to their conduct; and

d) Whether the non-citizen has re-offended since being formally warned, or since otherwise being made aware by a Court, law enforcement or other authority, about the consequences of further acts of family violence, noting that the absence of a warning should not be considered to be in the non-citizen's favour. This includes warnings about the non-citizen's migration status, should the non-citizen engage in further acts of family violence.

1. The Tribunal notes that the index offending involved violent behaviour against the Applicant's former partner, Mr Jacob Mitchell. As a person who has had an intimate personal relationship with the Applicant, Mr Mitchell is considered a 'member of the person's family' for the purposes of Direction 110.[104] As such the Tribunal finds that the index offending constitutes family violence for the purposes of paragraph 8.2 of Direction 110.
2. The Police records[105] indicate that in addition to the index offending the Applicant been convicted of further contravention of domestic violence orders that have involved direct assaults of her daughter-in-law and former partner, being:

(i) 28 October 2015 - Contravention of a Domestic Violence Order and sentenced to a period of six months' probation. > > (ii) 5 July 2022 - Contravention of Domestic Violence Order and sentenced to a period of nine months' probation. > > (iii) 2 August 2024 - Contravention of Domestic Violence order and sentenced to 3 months' imprisonment_._

3. The Tribunal is required to consider any rehabilitation the Applicant has undertaken at the time of the decision including the extent to which the Applicant has accepted responsibility for the family violence,[106] the extent to which the Applicant understands the impact of her behaviour on the abused and any witness of the abuse[107] and any efforts to address facts that contributed to their conduct.[108] In this case the Applicant has expressed her regret for her actions and accepted that she made a mistake in committing the index offending.[109] In her evidence to the Tribunal she accepted that her conduct toward her daughter-in-law was wrong.
4. However, by having breached the domestic violence orders, the Applicant has demonstrated a complete disregard for court orders and community-based orders. In addition, she has not demonstrated a commitment to rehabilitation for the purposes of dealing with her drug and alcohol consumption. While the Applicant has been accepted as a patient at Logan House, there was no evidence that she had completed any drug or alcohol programs or any mental health programs for the purposes of dealing with the cause of her offending. As such, the Applicant has failed to demonstrate any insight or judgment into her offending in circumstances where it was her evidence to the Tribunal that she had continued to use drugs after her release from detention and her return to New Zealand.
5. In this case the Tribunal accepts that the index offending was a serious offence and that it was an act of family violence. It notes the Australian Government has serious concerns about conferring on non-citizens who engaged in family violence the privilege of remaining in Australia. Having considered those matters referred to in paragraph 8.2(3) of Direction 110, the Tribunal notes that the Applicant's index offending represents an increase in the seriousness of the Applicant's offending. In addition, the Tribunal notes that the Applicant has not engaged in any rehabilitative programs for the purposes of dealing with the cause of her offending being her drug and alcohol consumption and mental health issues. While the Applicant expressed a strong desire to be with her family and in particular her son, Hunter, she has not engaged in any programs that would assist her to continue a parenting role in proving care and protection for her son. That is, she has not undertaken any programs that would help her understand the reasons for her drug and alcohol abuse and the triggers and strategies to remain drug and alcohol free.
6. Therefore, having regard to all the above, the Tribunal gives this consideration no weight in revoking the decision under review.

The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia

1. Paragraph 8.3(1) of Direction 110 provides that the Tribunal must consider any impact of the decision on the non-citizen's immediate family members in Australia. In this case, the Applicant's immediate family in Australia are her mother, two sisters and brother. The Applicant also has nieces and nephews residing in Australia ('Applicant's family').
2. Paragraph 8.3(2) of Direction 110 sets out factors to be considered in determining the strength, nature and duration of ties that the Applicant has to the Australian community, having regard to:

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

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

(v) more weight should be given to time the Applicant has spent contributing positively to the Australian community; and

(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 has resided in Australia for 38 years. Her immediate family including her mother, three siblings, three children, four grandchildren and 10 nieces and nephews all continue to live in Australia.[110] The Applicant's two minor children currently live with the Applicant's parents.[111]
2. Despite the length of time the Applicant has been in Australia she has limited connection to the community. The Applicant is not engaged in any community activities and did not provide any evidence of having volunteered for any community group for social organisation. The Applicant has only limited employment. Her evidence was that she has worked as a dental assistant (2007-2008), receptionist and process meat worker (1998 & 2003) for relatively short periods of time. In addition, she worked as a car detailer for a period of three years. Otherwise, based on the Applicant's own evidence she appears to have relied on welfare payments for her income for the bulk of her time in Australia. Given the Applicant's limited connection to the community, the Tribunal notes that the Applicant's offending has come at some cost to the Australian community.
3. Nevertheless, the Tribunal accepts the Applicant's evidence that she has a strong relationship with her family. However, it appears that this relationship has been adversely affected by her mental condition and her drug and alcohol use. The CSS report notes that the has a strong and positive relationship with her parents who she has lived with from time to time.[112] The report notes that the Applicant has left this accommodation on a few occasions and has sought accommodation through the Department of Housing.[113] The Applicant provided statements from family members and friends who indicated that they would miss her if she were to remain in New Zealand.
4. Therefore, based on the Applicant's evidence the Tribunal finds that if the Applicant's visa is not restored it would have an adverse emotional and psychological effect on the members of her family.
5. The Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs in favour of revoking the mandatory cancellation but finds it does not outweigh primary considerations in paragraphs 8.1, 8.2 and 8.5 of Direction 110.

Best interests of minor children in Australia

1. Paragraph 8.4 of Direction 110 requires decision-makers to determine, where relevant, whether revocation is in the best interests of any minor children in Australia. This provision applies only if the child is, or would be, under 18 years old at the time of the application.
2. In this case, the Applicant has two minor children and four minor grandchildren who would be impacted by a non-revocation decision.
3. The Applicant's has two minor children aged 17 years and 4 years.[114] In addition, she has four grandchildren aged 9 years, 8 years, 4 years and 10 months.
4. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant's minor children both live with their grandparents. Nevertheless, the Applicant states that she has a close relationship with her children. However, it appears the Applicant's relationship with her children including her parenting ability and protective capacity has been greatly affected by her drug and alcohol use and her mental health.[115] The applicant's eveidece was that due to her incarceration and because of her drug and alcohol use her minor children have been living with her parents for approximately 3 years. As a result, despite the claims that she is close with her children, she has not been able to consistently perform a parenting role in recent times. The CSS report states[116] that the Applicant has not demonstrated a sufficient level of understanding about how her drug and alcohol use impacts her ability to be a parent. Despite the CSS report recommendation that she seek appropriate assistance for her drug and alcohol use,[117] there was no evidence that the Applicant had engaged in any such program. In addition, the CSS report[118] noted that the Applicant has not sought any professional support for her mental health issues. In such circumstances there was not eveidece as to when the Applicant would be able to resume her parenting role to her minor children.
5. The Applicant's evidence to the Tribunal was that if her visa is not restored, she has been informed by Child Services that she would not be able to see her youngest child until he is 18 years old. The Applicant did not give any detail why this would be the case and did not provide any independent evidence that this would be case. In any event, the Tribunal notes that the CSS report states that if the Applicant fails to engage in any program and continues to engage in drugs and alcohol use, she will remain unable to provide the necessary care and protection for her children. As such, based on the Applicant's own evidence, given her failure to engage in any relevant programs and her continued drug use, it's likely she will continue to be denied the care and control of her child.
6. The Tribunal notes that if the Applicant's visa is not restored, she would be able to maintain contact with the minor children by video and other means.[119] Nevertheless, the Tribunal accepts that separation from the Applicant would have a detrimental effect on all the minor children.
7. Therefore, having regard to the above, the Tribunal finds that this primary consideration weighs in favour of revoking the mandatory cancellation but finds it does not outweigh primary considerations in paragraphs 8.1, 8.2 and 8.5 of Direction 110.

1. Paragraph 8.5(1) of Direction 110 provides that 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.
2. Further, paragraph 8.5(2) of Direction 110 provides that visa cancellation, refusal or non-revocation 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 be granted or continue to hold a visa. Finally, paragraph 8.5(3) states that this expectation applies regardless of whether the Applicant poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
3. Critically, 8.5(4) states:

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

1. In FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAF 185, the Federal Court stated that the paragraph imputed or ascribed to the whole of the Australian community an expectation that wholly aligns with the expectation of the executive government of the day in respect of its subject matter.[120] Nevertheless, it remains an issue for the Tribunal as to the weight that should be given to this consideration in making its decision.[121] In doing so the Tribunal is required to consider the specific circumstances of the Applicant's case.[122]
2. The Respondent submits that this primary consideration weighs heavily in favour of affirming the decision under review in circumstances where the index offending is an act of family violence.[123] It is submitted that the expectations of the Australian community apply regardless of whether the Applicant poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.[124]
3. In considering the weight to be attached to the expectation of the Australian community in determining whether there is another reason to revoke the cancellation decision, the Tribunal placed significant weight on the CSS report[125] that states the Applicant needs to engage in programs to assist her to develop an understanding about the reason for her drug use and her triggers for use and strategies to ensure that she is able to abstain from use. Despite the recommendation of the CSS report, the Applicant's evidence was that she has not engaged in any program for her drug and alcohol use and has continued to use drugs even after her arrival in New Zealand. Finally, the Tribunal notes the fact that despite claiming she suffers from mental health issues the Applicant has not sought professional support.[126]
4. In this case, in addition to the index offence the Applicant has continued to offend over an extended period principally for the purposes of supporting her drug addiction. The Applicant has committed a serious of dishonesty offences including stealing and unauthorised dealing with shop goods. In addition to the index offence the Applicant has been involved in family violence offences that include 11 breaches of domestic violence orders.[127] As such the Applicant has displayed a disregard for the law having breached various undertakings and court orders. Finally, the Applicant has displayed a lack of respect for the authority of the Government's representatives and officials having been convicted of assault of a police officer.[128]
5. In addition, the Tribunal has considered the fact that all the Applicant's family live in Australia including her parents, siblings and children. The Applicant claims save for the odd aunt and uncle she no longer has any history or connection to New Zealand. She claims[129] that she wants to return to Australia to be with her family, particularly her children. However, the Tribunal notes that while in Australia the Applicant continued to abuse drugs and alcohol to the detriment of her family members and her children.
6. In all the circumstances, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant is an acceptable risk to the Australian community. As such, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant is an unacceptable risk to the Australian community. Accordingly, it finds that the general expectation of the Australian community is that the Government will not allow the Applicant, having engaged in such a serious crime, to remain in Australia. As such, the Tribunal has given significant weight to this consideration in favour of not revoking the cancellation decision.
7. It is the general expectation of the community that the Government will not allow non-citizens who have engaged in a serious breach of Australian laws to enter or remain in Australia.[130] The Tribunal notes that community expectations apply regardless of whether the Applicant poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.[131]
8. In this case the Applicant has committed a serious offence and as such the Tribunal accepts that with respect to the expectations of the Australian community, it is a factor that weighs against the Applicant and in favour of non-revocation. In this case, the Tribunal is of the view this consideration outweighs the Applicant's strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia in circumstances where the Applicant has significant connection to the Australian community.
9. Accordingly, the Tribunal places significant weight on this primary consideration in favour of affirming the decision under review.

1. In deciding whether there is 'another reason' to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant's visa, the Tribunal must consider the 'other considerations' listed in Direction 110. These considerations are not exhaustive.[132]

9.1 Legal consequences of decision under section 501 or 501CA

(1) 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 that section, 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 noncitizen.

(2) A non-refoulement obligation is an obligation not to forcibly return, deport or expel a person to a place where they will be at risk of a specific type of harm. Australia has non-refoulement obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol (together called the Refugees Convention), the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the CAT), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its Second Optional Protocol (the ICCPR). The Act, particularly the concept of 'protection obligations', reflects Australia's interpretation of non-refoulement obligations and the scope of the obligations that Australia is committed to implementing.

(3) International non-refoulement obligations will generally not be relevant where the person concerned does not raise such obligations for consideration and the circumstances do not suggest a non-refoulement claim.

1. The Applicant is not a non-citizen covered by a protection visa finding for the purposes of paragraph 9.1.1 of Direction 110. The Applicant does not raise any claims which may give rise to Australia's non-refoulment obligations for the purposes of paragraph 9.1.2 of Direction 110.
2. The Applicant's evidence was that if she is returned to New Zealand, she will be forced to live without her immediate family and would be without their support. The Tribunal notes that her evidence was that she had some extended family in New Zealand with whom she has not had contact. Nevertheless, the Tribunal notes that the Applicant voluntarily removed herself to New Zealand on 14 October 2025 and has received assistance for the purpose of establishing herself in New Zealand. In any event any such consideration does not engage the issue of Australia's non-refoulement obligations.
3. The Tribunal notes that a non-revocation decision results in consequences including an exclusion period under s 503 of the Act and the application of Special Return Criteria under Schedule 5 of the Migration Regulations 1994. These are considerations that are intended statutory consequences of a decision not to revoke a visa cancellation.
4. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant is not subject to a protection finding and did not raise any claims which may give rise to international non-refoulement obligations. Accordingly, the Tribunal gives this consideration neutral weight.

1. Paragraph 9.2 of Direction 110 requires the Tribunal to consider any impediments that the Applicant may face if removed from Australia to New Zealand in establishing herself and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country).
2. The Applicant is 46 years old and has been in Australia for approximately 38 years. The Applicant has recently voluntarily returned to New Zealand. The Applicant claims to suffer from mental health issues which can be treated in New Zealand. In addition, the applicant has suffered from drug and alcohol use for which the Applicant can access treatment and counselling in New Zealand. The Applicant would not experience any substantial language or cultural barrier in New Zealand and she would be entitled to medical and social service support on the same basis as any other citizen of New Zealand. Nevertheless, the Tribunal accepts that the Applicant would experience some period of adjustment in New Zealand including the fact that she would be isolated from her immediate family, which would cause her stress and anxiety.
3. Nevertheless, the Tribunal gives this consideration no weight.

1. Paragraph 9.3 of Direction 110 provides that a decision maker must have regard to any impact on Australian business interests if the non-citizen is not allowed to remain in Australia.
2. There is no evidence to suggest that the Applicant's removal will impact any current Australian business interests. Accordingly, the Tribunal gives this consideration no weight.

1. The Tribunal has considered the specific circumstances in relation to the Applicant. Given the Applicant does not pass the character test, the Tribunal is required to weigh the relevant factors to determine whether it is satisfied that there is another reason to revoke the cancellation decision.
2. The primary consideration is the protection of the Australian community. Having considered the primary and other considerations in Direction 110, the Tribunal affirms the decision under review. In circumstances where the Direction 110 requires that greater weight must be given to the primary consideration of protecting the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct, the Tribunal finds that this consideration outweighs the other considerations given in favour of the Applicant. Paragraph 5.2(2) of Direction 110 states that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government. Considering the very serious nature of the Applicant's offences and the risk to the Australian community should she re-offend in a similar manner, any risk that the Applicant may re-offend is one that should not be tolerated by the community.
3. As such, the Tribunal is not satisfied that countervailing considerations outweigh the protection and expectations of the Australian community such that the cancellation decision should be revoked.

1. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is another reason to revoke the cancellation decision. The decision of the Tribunal is to affirm the decision under review.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and thirty-three (133) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of General Member J Pennell.

............[sgd]............................

[10] Tohi v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCAFC 125; (2021) 285 FCR 187, [3]-[5] (Katzmann J); [24] (Derrington J) [103] (O'Bryan J).

[11] Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 17 ('Plaintiff M1/2021'), [22]-[27] (Kiefel CJ, Keane, Gordon and Steward JJ).

[12] Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 594 [23].

[51] Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 501(7).

[55] Respondents Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions [25]; HB583.

[56] Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(b)(ii) of Direction 110.

[61] Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(c) of Direction 110; Pavey and Minister for Home Affairs [2019] AATA 4198 at [44] per Senior Member Tavoularis.

1. [62] Dayananda v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 1050 at [39].

[66] Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(f) of Direction 110.

[67] Tanielu v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2014) 225 FCR 424; [2014] FCA 673.

[68] Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo [1997] HCA 22; (1997) 144 ALR 567, 578-579; Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v ERY19 [2021] FCAFC 133, [81]; Leota v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 1120, [63].

[69] Murphy v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1924, [37].

[70] Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559, [574].

[71] Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559, [575].

[72] Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559, [574] - [575].

[73] Paragraph 8.1.2(2)(a) of Direction 110.

[74] Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions [32]; HB584.

[103] Paragraphs 4(1)(a) and (b) of Direction 110.

[105] Paragraph 8.2(2)(b) of Direction 110.

[106] Paragraph 8.2(3)(c)(i) of Direction 110.

[107] Paragraph 8.2(3)(c)(ii) of Direction 110.

[108] Paragraph 8.2(3)(c)(iii) of Direction 110.

[119] Paragraph 8.4(4)(d) of Direction 110.

[120] FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAF 185; 272 FCR 454, [66]-[67], [91], 101] and [104].

[122] Kelly [2022] FCA 396, [98]-[109] (Beach J).

[123] Paragraph 8.5(2)(a) of Direction 110.

[124] Paragraph 8.5(3) of Direction 110.

[128] Paragraph 8.5(2)(d) of Direction 110.

[130] Paragraph 8.5(2) of Direction 110.

[131] Paragraph 8.5(3) of Direction 110.

[132] SZRTN v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 303; (2014) 141 ALD 395, 409 at [86].