1. The applicable legislative and policy approach is well established and fairly summarised by the Respondent.[1] The Tribunal adopts that summary set out below:

13. When a visa is mandatorily cancelled pursuant to s 501(3A), the Minister must give the person concerned written notice of the cancellation which sets out the original decision and particulars of the relevant information, and invite the person to make representations to the Minister about revocation of the original decision: s 501CA(3)(a) and (b). > > 14. Pursuant to s 501CA(4), the Minister may revoke the original decision if: > > 14.1. representations have been made by the person concerned in accordance with the invitation to make such representations about revocation of the cancellation: s 501CA(4)(a); and > > 14.2. the Minister is satisfied that: > > 14.3. the person passes the character test: s 501CA(4)(b)(i); or > > 14.4. there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked: s 501CA(4)(b)(ii). > > 15. A decision under s 501CA(4) of the Act involves an assessment and evaluation of the factors for and against revoking the cancellation.1 > > 16. A determination under s 501CA(4) must be carried out in accordance with any written directions given under s 499(1) of the Act: s 499(2A). In considering a request for revocation of a mandatory s 501(3A) cancellation, the decision-maker must comply with Direction 110, which was given by the Minister under s 499 of the Act. > > Direction 110 > > 17. On 7 June 2024, the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs issued Direction 110. Direction 110 commenced on 21 June 2024 and replaced Direction 99. Direction 110 is a Ministerial Direction made pursuant to s 499 of the Act and must be applied by decision makers including the Tribunal. > > 18. Paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110 provides that the principles enunciated therein (Principles) provide the framework within which decision-makers should approach the task of deciding whether to revoke a mandatory cancellation under s 501CA of the Act. Informed by the Principles, the decision-maker must take into account the primary considerations in Part 2 of Direction 110 in whether to revoke a mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen's visa. The primary considerations are: > > (a) protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct; > > (b) whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence; > > (c) the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia; > > (d) the best interests of minor children in Australia; and > > (e) expectations of the Australian community. > > 19. The decision-maker must also take into account other considerations insofar as they are relevant. These include but are not limited to: > > (a) legal consequences of the decision; > > (b) extent of impediments if removed; and > > (c) impact on Australian business interests.

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

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

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

(4) The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they engaged in conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, that raises serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the non citizen poses a measureable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.

(5) Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, or by other non-citizens who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only for a short period of time.

(6) With respect to decisions to refuse, cancel, and revoke cancellation of a visa, Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age.

(7) Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the non-citizen's conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation.

(8) The inherent nature of certain conduct such as family violence is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation, even if the information available at the time of consideration suggests that the non citizen does not pose a measureable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.

1. The 24-year old Somali Applicant arrived in Australia in 2015, aged 13, with his mother and siblings, as the holder of a Humanitarian visa, joining his father who was already here. The Applicant has had a challenging childhood and upbringing. As the Applicant submitted:[2]

4. I arrived in Australia when I was thirteen on a humanitarian visa with my mother and siblings, joining my father who was already here. Before that I had grown up between Somalia and Ethiopia and moved because of violence and instability. I saw dead bodies in the street, heard gunfire, and lived with fear. Those are memories I still live with. No one taught me what trauma was or how to talk about it. Where I grew up boys and men were expected to keep it all inside and to "be tough." I brought that silence with me to Australia.

5. When we came here, we learned that my father has schizophrenia. My mother worked long hours in aged care and at a shop to support us, and because English was difficult for her, I translated and helped with many things at home. I cooked, cleaned, and helped my younger sisters with schoolwork and appointments.

6. I visited my father regularly to help with groceries and to cook for him. When he was paranoid and not eating, I would cook a week of meals in advance so he could warm them up. My family relies on me, and I have always felt responsible for them. My entire immediate family is in Australia. In my family there is:

7. I attended an English language school for a year and then entered Year 9 at a mainstream school. I struggled a lot with English and with the pace of learning. I felt like I was falling behind and not getting the support I needed to keep up. I left during Year 11 and went to work to contribute to the family and to be useful.

8. Around the same time, I started hanging out with a group of boys who

introduced me to Xanax and cannabis. At first, I didn't understand what the drugs were really doing. I used them when I felt stressed, low, or overwhelmed. I now understand that I was using them to numb feelings I didn't know how to face, grief when someone close to me died, pressure at home, and the old memories I had never spoken about. In my culture, men don't talk about emotions because it is seen as weak. I kept everything inside and that was part of why I made terrible decisions.

9. I accept my convictions with no excuses. I understand the harm I caused the victims and the community. I pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity because I knew I was responsible and I did not want to drag it out.

10. have thought constantly about what the victims of my offending experienced, the fear, pain, the shock of being attacked, and the impact on his family. If I could speak to him, I would apologise sincerely and from the heart. I am ashamed of what I did, and I know I can't take it back. My responsibility is to make sure it never happens again and to live in a way that does not hurt anyone.

The nature and seriousness of the conduct to date

1. The Applicant has committed numerous offences prior to his last offending in October 2024. Whilst noting the underlying facts for each, the Tribunal does not otherwise attach any weight to those offences which the Applicant was found guilty of but for which 'without conviction' was recorded.[3]
2. In May 2023 he was convicted and fined $600 (plus statutory costs) for drink driving. His Licence was disqualified/cancelled for 16 months, having also been convicted of driving as a Learner Driver without a supervising driver.
3. The 'index' offending involving violence occurred in August 2023, 'armed robbery' and 'recklessly cause injury' and October 2024 'attempt robbery' and 'recklessly causing injury' and as such it is viewed very seriously by the Australian government and community: Direction 110 8.1.1(1)(a)(i).
4. In August 2023 as the Respondent fairly summarised,[4] "...the applicant was sitting in a car in a car park in Richmond and demanded that the victim give him the cigarette he was currently smoking, whilst inside the car. When the victim refused, the applicant exited the car and blocked the victim from walking away and further told the victim to give him the cigarette. The applicant whilst holding what appeared to be a black firearm, took the cigarette from the victim".
5. In October 2024 the Applicant again committed offending involving violence. As the Respondent fairly summarised,[5] "...the victim was visiting family in an apartment complex. The victim entered the lift to return home. The applicant, along with two co-offenders, were already present inside the lift. Soon after the victim entered the lift, the applicant demanded the victim hand over his phone. Upon the victim advising the applicant of the insufficient credit on his phone, he went through the victim's pockets, pressed him against the wall of the lift while hitting him with his fist and removing the phone from the victim's pocket. The applicant continued to punch and kick the victim whilst the lift was in motion. After the lift stopped, the applicant pushed the victim out of the lift and continued the assault by kicking and punching him multiple times. The applicant then left the scene when the victim started yelling for help. The victim then used the apartment complex's internal stairs to return to his family member's residence who assisted him by contacting emergency services. Upon arrival, the paramedics observed the victim with 'significant facial swelling and bleeding, lacerations to his head' and was later transported to a hospital to be treated for injuries, including an eye that was swollen shut".
6. The Applicant was cross examined about both instances of violent offending. As to the October 2024 offending the Applicant's testimony was somewhat vague as to why he continued to attack the victim after he had been told the victim's phone had insufficient credit on it. Essentially the Applicant had limited memory of the offending. The circumstances and result of this offending were particularly confronting, involving sustained violence. The Respondent properly submitted that by the Applicant's continuing attack upon the victim did add an increased seriousness to the offending. It is the type of conduct that the Australian community is very concerned about as is made plain in Direction 110.
7. In March 2025 a Mr Warren Simmons. Consulting Psychologist, prepared a report for the County Court hearing the appeal in respect of the October 2024 offending. Incidentally, there is some tension between the history of drug use taken by Mr Simmons and the Applicant's testimony, evolving around his history of methamphetamine misuse as opposed to Xanax misuse, but this does not detract from the Applicant's testimony where he attempted to give the best evidence he could, curtailed in some instances by incomplete memories.
8. At the time of the October 2024 offending the Applicant was subject to a community corrections order imposed for the August 2023 offending. On appeal in the County Court in January 2025, the Sentencing Judge stated that the October 2024 offending was "... a very serious example of a recklessly causing injury charge, and it - on that occasion it goes up hand in hand with an attempted robbery charge. It was, on that occasion, carried out in company with others who, at least one of whom, physically involved himself in the attack, and it's difficult to reconcile the person who did those things with the person described in Mr Simmons' report".[6]
9. The Sentencing Judge, apart from dealing with the breach of community corrections order, sentenced the Applicant to "12 months imprisonment. 6 months concurrent with other order imposed this day... aggregate 18 months imprisonment. Total 24 months with other matters imposed this day".[7] Since the Applicant had been in custody since October 2024 the sentence was adjusted for 207 days of pre-sentence detention.
10. The sentencing for the two instances of violent offending collectively is not insignificant and the Tribunal finds such offending to be very serious but not of such magnitude that any risk of re-offending may be unacceptable, as contemplated by 5.2 (8) of Direction 110. The Tribunal does accept though that the Applicant's offending has increased in seriousness engaging both 8.1.1(1)(e) and (f) of Direction 110.

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

1. Mr Simmons noted the Applicant's 'poor memory' and also that "he does not feel hopeless or suicidal, he believes that he has let people down and feels ashamed". Such is consistent with the Applicant's testimony. Importantly, "[the Applicant] ... said he had nightmares of his experiences in Somalia and as a result, he was asked to complete the PCL-S PTSD checklist... indicating that he meets the DSM-V criteria for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder." This was the first time, in March 2025, that the Applicant had been properly and formally diagnosed with any mental health condition and it is apparent that the diagnosis had some positive and real impact upon the Applicant.
2. In context, the Applicant stated:[8]

13. I want to explain how I ended up offending, not to excuse it, but to show what I am addressing now. I had been using Xanax and smoking marijuana heavily. A close friend of mine had been killed and I felt grief and anger I didn't know how to handle, on top of the old trauma and pressures at home. Instead of seeking help I numbed myself.

14. Drugs affected my thinking and emotions and my self-control. I now know that when I used, my judgement was clouded. I felt detached from consequences. I acted recklessly in ways that are completely against who I want to be.

15. In March 2025 a psychologist assessed me and described trauma-related symptoms and the need for structured help. I was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). It was the first time I had words for what was wrong inside me. The diagnosis helped explain the nightmares, the hyper-vigilance, the irritability and the way I shut down or over-reacted, and why I used substances to cope.

16. Since being in prison, I have not used any drugs, and I have remained clean on urine tests. There are drugs in prison, but I have not been tempted because I have reconnected with my faith, I am focusing on programs, and I keep reminding myself how drugs damaged my life and my family. I have also kept out of trouble. There was one occasion when I was put in the slot for a day after a false accusation; officers investigated and confirmed it was untrue. I did not retaliate. Instead, I walked away and stayed out of conflict.

17. I work in the prison laundry, and I take pride in showing up, doing a proper job, and respecting supervisors. When I feel frustrated, I take a short walk, breathe. and return to finish my work. These are simple things, but they are the foundation of how I plan to live. I used to hate early mornings. Now I wake up early every day and, even on Saturdays, I get up and do what is required. I want to carry those routines and discipline into the community.

1. The Applicant's testimony was consistent with his 2026 Statement. It is apparent on this evidence that the March 2025 diagnosis acted as a catalyst for a 'turning point' in the Applicant. His approach has significantly altered since then and during the time he has been incarcerated since October 2024. He testified that having received a significant prison sentence and enduring prison life made him think much more seriously about the direction his life was going in. The early stints in remand had not had that impact upon him.
2. The Applicant put it as follows:[9]

16. Since being in prison, I have not used any drugs, and I have remained clean on urine tests. There are drugs in prison, but I have not been tempted because I have reconnected with my faith, I am focusing on programs, and I keep reminding myself how drugs damaged my life and my family. I have also kept out of trouble. There was one occasion when I was put in the slot for a day after a false accusation; officers investigated and confirmed it was untrue. I did not retaliate. Instead, I walked away and stayed out of conflict.

17. I work in the prison laundry, and I take pride in showing up, doing a proper job, and respecting supervisors. When I feel frustrated, I take a short walk, breathe. and return to finish my work. These are simple things, but they are the foundation of how I plan to live. I used to hate early mornings. Now I wake up early every day and, even on Saturdays, I get up and do what is required. I want to carry those routines and discipline into the community.

18. I have tried to take every opportunity for rehabilitation that I could. I completed Talking Change program from 31 October 2025 to 19 November 2025. I started the High Intensity Violence Intervention Program (HIVIP) on 2 December 2025. I have completed the Introduction and Life Pathways modules, and I am now in the Pro-Social Thinking module. I have attended every session and participated in group discussions and activities under the group agreement. It I [sic] plan to complete HIVIP in July 2026. Before HIVIP, I completed Know the Score (drug education) and the Centre of Excellence construction course to build work skills.

19. In the 30-hour Know the Score alcohol and other drug program at Loddon Prison, I completed all 10 sessions. I got involved in the discussions, shared my own experiences, and finished all the group and individual tasks. The program helped me put together a proper relapse-prevention plan, and I learned how to recognise my triggers, whether they're emotional, situational or just where my head is at, and how to use practical strategies to keep myself in control when those triggers come up.

20. These programs have taught me about triggers, how thoughts, feelings, and behaviours link together, how to slow down and challenge unhelpful thinking, and how to make safer choices. The most practical skill I use is Cognitive Behavioural Therapy or CBT. When I feel my chest tighten, my thoughts begin to race, or anger coming up, I stop, breathe, name the thought and the feeling, test whether the thought is accurate, and choose a safe behaviour like walking away, asking for five minutes, or changing the subject. I have used these skills frequently in prison, for example, when someone wrongly accused me, I used the breathing and thought-challenging and did not react. I also use these skills in the laundry, where I sometimes feel frustrated because after I took over operating the machines, I was not offered overtime while others with less experience were. Even after I asked to be considered, the officer continued giving overtime to the same people. In the past I would have reacted, but now when I feel that frustration, I take a short walk, breathe, and come back calm. I have remained incident-free.

21. A big change is learning to talk. In my upbringing men didn't talk. Everything got bottled up until it exploded. Through programs and honest conversations, I have learned to say when I am angry, scared or sad, and to ask for help. Faith has become a daily anchor. I pray five times a day. When possible, I join others in prayer inside. Prayer makes me calmer, kinder and more grounded.

1. The Applicant also testified to the same effect, and the Tribunal finds these matters essentially established by the evidence.
2. Whilst the Respondent points to the fact that the Applicant had been subjected to a couple of early periods of remand covering a few months, which did not seem to have rehabilitative effect, these were prior to the March 2025 PTSD diagnosis.
3. The Applicant has completed various rehabilitation courses whilst in prison including Know the Score relating to alcohol and drug misuse management, Talking Change and in November last year he commenced the High Intensity Violence Intervention Program (HIVIP). The Applicant will be eligible for parole once he completes the HIVIP course later this year.
4. The Applicant has stayed off drugs since he has been incarcerated and has also completed the intensive Centre of Excellence construction course, enabling a 'white card' so that the Applicant can seek out demolition/construction work if he is permitted to return to the Australian community. His testimony, in particular, indicates that the rehabilitation courses are having a positive impact on the Applicant, and that he has learnt from such courses, as opposed to just attending them.
5. If permitted to remain in Australia the Applicant will return to live with his mother and siblings. The Respondent submitted that this could be a negative rather than protective factor because the evidence shows that in the time leading to the index offending the Applicant was under pressure from his family who were relying upon him to help out. On the evidence, the key difference now is the insight the Applicant now has into his offending and the drivers behind it, including the dangers of alcohol and drugs. His prison sentence, together with the programs he has and continues to undertake appear to have prompted a maturing of the Applicant and instilled an awareness of the wrongs he has committed in the past, together with the need and desire to live a better life. The Tribunal is satisfied that it will be a very different, more insightful Applicant that returns to the family home, should he be permitted to do so. He is now more open and communicative, knows why he turned to illicit drugs and alcohol and is better able to deal with life's difficulties.The Tribunal also notes that should he be released into the community on parole, he will be subject to various 'monitoring' conditions until his sentence ends in November 2026. This also represents a protective factor, albeit only for a few months.
6. Further, the Tribunal accepts the evidence of both Ms Darbyshire and Mr Hallam, whom have worked with the Applicant over the years in a social services context, that the Applicant has changed for the better. Both testified that in their opinion, based on their respective engagement with the Applicant, he would be unlikely to reoffend. Where he was previously disengaged and was not susceptible to the assistance they offered, he now is motivated and has a more positive attitude and is engaging in programs and the like aimed at his self-improvement. Whilst the Tribunal accepts that this evidence is not truly independent, both Ms Darbyshire and Mr Hallam gave evidence based on their professional 'lived' experience both generally and specifically in respect of the Applicant. The Respondent submitted that in one sense they were advocates for the Applicant, however, the Tribunal is satisfied from their testimony that their evidence as to the Applicant's rehabilitation and good prospects for the future was essentially objective.
7. Ms Darbyshire and Mr Hallam's evidence also set out the ongoing professional assistance which the Applicant will engage with if he is permitted to return to the Australian community. Such will strengthen his ability to achieve the rehabilitative goals he desires. Well regarded and disciplined services bundles will be available from Foundation House for trauma therapy and Project Sunrise for culturally focused alcohol and drug support with 'lived experience' mentoring. This will be supplemented with faith reconnection with a local imam (the Applicant having returned to a more significant involvement with his faith since incarceration), education and employment pathways and a formal case-management plan with goals and reviews. All of this will represent protective factors of substance.
8. In the circumstances, the Tribunal finds there is a low risk of the Applicant re-offending.
9. The Tribunal finds that this Primary Consideration weighs slightly in favour of affirming the reviewable decision.

1. The parties submit and the Tribunal finds that this Primary Consideration is not relevant, hence it is given neutral weight.

The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia

1. The Applicant has lived in Australia for a significant part of his life, having arrived, aged 13, in 2015. All of the Applicant's family lives in Australia. He is particularly close to his mother and his sisters. He also has an older brother, a stepsister, a newphew and paternal grandmother. He has no remaining family in Somalia. In the past he had helped care for his father who lives with the Applicant's grandmother. His father has schizophrenia and has recently been admitted to a psychiatric facility.
2. As his mother has stated, the Applicant had, prior to his incarceration, provided considerable support, presumably at the times when he was not severely under the influence of drugs and alcohol, and was the person who "held our life together" in the absence of the father from the family home and with the Applicant's older brother having his own mental health challenges. At times, the Applicant had to assume 'father-like' responsibilities managing appointments for his mother, attending to paperwork and bills, shopping and providing practical support to his father. Ms LA, the Applicant's sister has provided similar consistent evidence as to the Applicant's efforts and responsibilities at home and also, importantly, she says she is committed to accompany the Applicant to his various appointments, assisting the Applicant to follow through with the counselling and other programs he wants to undertake, should he be released. Obviously, as the Respondent submits, the Applicant's family have functioned without him since October 2024, but that does not mean that he would not incrementally add real assistance to his family's lives if he were permitted to return to them. They have struggled without his positive input into family life since his absence from October 2024.
3. As the Applicant states, "...my daily routine at home will be simple and structured. I will wake up for prayer, shower, go to the gym, and apply for jobs until I am working. I will help around the house and cook and shop for my father [upon his return to him home from the psychiatric facility]. When I get a job, my day will be built around early starts, full time shifts, prayer, gym and helping my family". The Respondent highlights that these family responsibilities had put pressure on the Applicant in the past and may have been part of the reason he turned to drugs and alcohol for relief, which subsequently led to offending. Whilst there is some force in that view, it is clear from the evidence that the Applicant is now a different more mature individual, as discussed above, who will approach his integral role in his family life with a different outlook, consistent with his desire to help out his family and make up for the negative impact he caused in the past.
4. The Applicant has maintained strong connections with Yarra Youth Services since 2017. Ms Darbyshire and Mr Hallam have given consistent evidence which underscores the longevity and strength of the ties including the insight he now has which drives in part his motivation to further and more fully engage with such a support network in Australia, which he is clearly connected to.
5. Further, a longstanding friend of the Applicant, Ms G, has stated that she will be significantly negatively impacted.
6. The Tribunal notes that, to date, the Applicant has made minimal positive contributions to the Australian community through, inter alia, employment.
7. Nonetheless, on balance, the Tribunal finds that this Primary Consideration weighs heavily in favour of the Applicant.

1. There is evidence that the Applicant has a measured 'father-like' relationship with his 10 year old nephew, the son of the Applicant's older half-sister. The Applicant's removal from Australia would result in a negative impact to some degree upon his nephew, as the Applicant has been an intermittent role model to his nephew.
2. The Applicant submits and the Tribunal accepts the following:[10]

72. Before imprisonment, the applicant saw his nephew approximately once per month, whenever his work and family responsibilities allowed. Even at that frequency, the contact was regular, meaningful and voluntary. The nephew knows the applicant as his maternal uncle, an important and culturally significant male role within Somali families.

73. The child is at a developmentally sensitive age, old enough to form strong emotional attachments and internalise family loss, but young enough that his coping mechanisms are still immature.

74. Somali family structures place a strong emphasis on extended family networks, shared caregiving, and intergenerational connection. Uncles commonly play protective, guidance-based roles in a child's upbringing. The applicant's nephew's awareness of him, and their regular contact before prison, show the child recognises the applicant as part of his normal family landscape.

75. Removing the applicant from Australia would mean this child permanently loses one of the key male figures in his cultural and familial ecosystem. The applicant has expressed a clear intention to rebuild and strengthen that relationship upon his release, demonstrating insight into the role he plays within his extended family and the value of maintaining that bond. If the Tribunal were to affirm this decision, the applicant and his nephew would be deprived of the opportunity to maintain and strengthen their relationship upon the applicant's release.

76. If the applicant were removed from Australia, in-person contact with his nephew would become impossible. For a child of this age, occasional contact across borders, assuming it were feasible given practical, emotional and technological barriers, is not an adequate substitute for face-to-face guidance, reassurance and involvement in everyday family life. The resulting separation would be permanent, and the loss of this relationship would likely have a negative emotional and developmental impact on the child.

1. The Respondent correctly submits that the Applicant has only had a limited role in his nephew's upbringing to date. However, he has had, and wishes to continue to fulfil, an important role in the life of his nephew.
2. The Tribunal finds that this Primary Consideration weighs slightly in the Applicant's favour.

1. This Primary Consideration is to be considered normatively by reference to Direction 110 itself. Pursuant to 8.5(4) of Direction 110, the expectations of the Australian community as a whole are to be considered. The Tribunal is to proceed on the basis of the Respondent's views in this regard and not independently assess such expectation.
2. The expectations are to be weighed in the context of the matters discussed and findings made in respect of the other Primary Considerations above and not in isolation from them.
3. In such circumstances, the Tribunal finds that this Primary Consideration weighs in favour of affirming the reviewable decision.

1. The approach the Tribunal is to take here was discussed during the hearing. The Tribunal adopts the Respondent's summary of the requisite approach in this Application, as set out below:[11]

54. Under paragraph 9.1(1) of Direction 110, decision-makers are directed to "be mindful" that unlawful non-citizens are liable to removal from Australia as soon as practicable, and in the meantime, detention. The Tribunal should therefore take these legal consequences into account. The Direction then contains different guidance for decision-makers depending on whether an applicant is covered by a protection finding. The applicant is not covered by a protection finding. As such, the relevant provision is paragraph 9.1.2 of Direction 110.

55. However, Paragraph 9.1.2(2) provides that where it is open to the non-citizen to apply for a protection visa, such as in this case, it is not necessary at the section 501CA stage to consider non-refoulement issues in the same level of detail as those types of issues are considered in a protection visa application, noting the process for determining protection visa applications is specifically designed for consideration of non-refoulement obligations as given effect by the Act. Where it is open to the person to make such an application a decision-maker, in making a decision under s 501CA, is not required to determine whether non-refoulement obligations are engaged in respect of the person. Having considered the person's representations, the decision-maker may choose to proceed on the basis that if and when the person applies for a protection visa, any protection claims they have will be assessed, as required by section 36A of the Act, before consideration is given to any character or security concerns associated with them.

56. Further, the High Court has held that in deciding whether there was another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa pursuant to s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act where the applicant was able to lodge an application for a protection visa:

56.1 the delegate was required to read, identify, understand and evaluate the representations made in response to the invitation issued to the applicant under s 501CA(3)(b) that raised a potential breach of Australia's international non refoulement obligations;

56.2 Australia's international non refoulement obligations unenacted in Australia were not a mandatory relevant consideration; and

56.3 to the extent Australia's international non refoulement obligations are given effect in the Act, one available outcome for the delegate was to defer assessment of whether the applicant was owed those non-refoulement obligations on the basis that it was open to the applicant to apply for a protection visa under the Act.

57. The applicant claims that he would be forcibly recruited into Al-Shabab terrorist group if he was returned to Somalia. The applicant claims that he would suffer significant harm to his personal safety and mental health (G10/89). The delegate considered that the applicant's claims could engage Australia's international non-refoulment obligations but that it was open to the applicant to make an application for a Protection visa during which the applicant's claims regarding Australia's non-refoulement obligations would be fully assessed (G2/28-29 [80]-[81]).

58. It remains open to the applicant to apply for a protection visa in the event that the mandatory revocation of the cancellation of his visa is not revoked. That application would necessarily involve a comprehensive assessment of whether he is owed protection obligations. Should the Tribunal find it necessary to consider, and consistent with the High Court's findings in Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 17; 96 ALJR 497 (M1), the Minister contends that the Tribunal should defer consideration of whether the applicant is owed non-refoulment obligations on the basis that it is open to him to apply for a protection visa.

1. The Applicants fears and concerns are expressed as follows:[12]

83. The applicant fears serious harm if he were returned to Somalia due to his lack of any family, clan or community network in Mogadishu, which would leave him without shelter, support or protection. He explains that people rely heavily on these networks for basic survival, and that without them he would be extremely vulnerable. He further fears being targeted by the terrorist Al-Shabaab, who continue to carry out killings, extortion and attacks, and who commonly target people returning from Western countries whom they perceive as having resources or connections. The applicant states that, as a young man returning alone with no one to vouch for him, he would be seen as an outsider and exposed to threats, demands, and accusations without anyone to defend him. He also expresses deep concern that his diagnosed PTSD would deteriorate in Somalia, where he reports there are no accessible mental-health services, making him even more vulnerable to exploitation, harm, and psychological collapse.

84. Country information shows that although the Federal Government maintains nominal control over Mogadishu, Al-Shabaab retains covert operational capacity in the capital, infiltrates checkpoints, and continues to carry out targeted attacks. In Mogadishu, Al-Shabaab have directed attacks at persons and establishments perceived as linked to government and at businesspeople who resist its demands, and often involve suicide bombings, IEDs, and targeted assassinations. While these attacks were not necessarily directed at civilians, civilians were often at risk of becoming collateral damage. Country information from Human Rights Watch (HRW) corroborates these fears. HRW has referred to an attack on a beach restaurant in on 2 August 2024, which resulted in 37 civilians killed and over 200 injured.

85. The applicant fears being specifically targeted as a Western returnee with no protection and perceived access to resources. He states that such individuals are treated as "tourists" by Al-Shabaab and subjected to accusations, threats, and demands, particularly without access to a support network.

86. There is no doubt that the prospect of being targeted by Al-Shabaab may result in the applicant suffering severe mental and physical harm. He is especially vulnerable as an unprotected Western returnee with no social safety net.

87. The applicant may also face harm as a person who suffers from a mental illness. Psychiatric care in Somalia is sparse.93 It is also likely that the applicant will encounter stigma as someone who suffers from mental illnesses, as there are reports of citizens of Somalia considering that psychosocial disabilities are the result of possession by evil spirits or witchcraft.

1. At the applicable high level the Tribunal finds that the Applicant's fears of harm are real but otherwise defers consideration as to whether the Applicant is owed non-refoulment obligations as it is open to him to apply in the future for a protection visa, should he chose to do so.
2. The Tribunal finds that this Other Consideration weighs slightly in the Applicant's favour.

1. The Tribunal is to look to any impediments the Applicant may face if removed to Somalia, in establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards equivalent to such that is generally available. The Applicant has no family or clan support in Somalia which in itself will be a significant impediment to the Applicant having any real chance of establishing himself there,
2. The Applicant highlighted the difficulties as follows:[13]

90. In Mogadishu, country information indicates that those who have no clan or family support are likely to face a risk of serious harm. Unemployment remains high, and obtaining a job usually requires some level of support from relatives or clan members. Rent remains high and a clan guarantor is often required to obtain accommodation.

91. Moreover, access to water, sanitation, and basic services is likewise precarious. Water provision is dominated by private suppliers. Poor sanitation and low access to drinking water has led to spikes in cholera in Somalia. The spread of this disease is fuelled by seasonal rains and floods. Poor disposal of human and other waste often contaminates floodwater which has led to polluted groundwater and wells.

92. If returned to Somalia, the applicant would face severe and compounding impediments to establishing even the most basic living conditions. Country information makes clear that survival in Mogadishu depends heavily on family, clan and diaspora support networks for access to housing, employment and day-to-day safety. Clan and family links are crucial to settle, with jobs typically requiring relatives or clan sponsors, and people without such ties facing serious challenges obtaining work or accommodation. The applicant has no family or clan support in Somalia. In the Mogadishu context, the absence of family and clan links markedly increases the applicant's vulnerability. As a person without those links, the applicant may struggle to obtain the most basic of services, such as accommodation, water or employment.

93. Furthermore, compared to other citizens of Somalia, the applicant will face additional challenges by reason of his PTSD which operates as a vulnerability multiplier. He requires ongoing psychological support for the trauma symptoms he experiences. Country information for Somalia indicates that mental-health services are scare, with few public hospitals having psychiatrists or beds and medicines often being unavailable or costly. In addition, there remains a pervasive stigma around mental illness. For a person with an established psychiatric condition, the applicant faces the risk of a deterioration in his mental state which could lead to severe psychological distress. The applicant would face significant, individualised impediments to re-establishing himself on return, far beyond what is ordinarily encountered by returnee or other citizens of Somalia.

1. The Tribunal is satisfied that such difficulties are made out on the evidence before it and finds that this Other Consideration weighs heavily in favour of the Applicant.

1. The parties submit and the Tribunal finds that this Other Consideration is not relevant, hence it is given neutral weight.

1. The Tribunal has carried out the evaluative exercise of weighing up the considerations in the manner as mentioned above, to determine whether it is satisfied that there is another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa.
2. On balance, having applied the findings above and accorded the weight respectively to be applied to each of the considerations, the Tribunal is satisfied that those in favour of affirming the reviewable decision are outweighed by those in favour of revoking the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa.

...........................[SGD]........................

[1] The Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions ('RSFIC') dated 18 February 2026, [13]-[19].

[2] The Applicant's Statement, undated ('Applicant's 2026 Statement') [4]-[10].

[3] Hearing Book ('HB') 38-39; see WBKF v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 468 and the High Court authorities discussed therein.

[6] RSFIC [25], quoting G-Documents ('G-Docs') filed 29 January 2026 at G5 55.

[8] Applicant's 2026 Statement [13]-[17].

[9] Applicant's 2026 Statement [16]-[21].

[10] The Applicant's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions ('ASFIC') dated 4 March 2026, [72]-[76].