On 14 September 2026 the Administrative Review Tribunal decided Li and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Migration) [2026] ARTA 2012. The decision is a useful lesson on risk. The Tribunal accepted that the applicant’s risk of reoffending was low. It still refused to restore her visa.
This article explains why, and what the decision means for anyone preparing a revocation request.
The background
The applicant was 65 years old and had lived in Australia for 22 years. Her visa was mandatorily cancelled after a sentence of four years and four months. The offences were possession of methamphetamine with intent to sell or supply, and possession of stolen property.
First, police conducted two searches. The second took place while she was on bail. In addition, she had a long history of casino trespass offences, which arose from a gambling addiction.
She asked the Minister to revoke the cancellation under section 501CA(4) of the Migration Act. A delegate refused, and she applied to the Tribunal for review.
What the Tribunal decided on risk
First, the Tribunal found the offending very serious. In addition, it found the pattern was escalating.
The expert evidence said her individual risk of reoffending was low, and the Tribunal accepted that evidence. However, it found that even a low risk was unacceptable. The reason was the seriousness of the harm if the offending happened again.
Two facts weighed against her. First, there was no documented rehabilitation that addressed her gambling or her drug use. Second, she said she intended to address those needs after release.
How the other factors weighed
On the one hand, her 22 years of residence counted in her favour. So did her Australian citizen son and granddaughter. The Tribunal gave those ties moderate weight. Similarly, impediments she would face on return to China weighed slightly in her favour.
On the other side, the Tribunal gave heavy weight to protection of the Australian community. It also gave heavy weight to the expectations of the community. Consequently, it affirmed the decision not to revoke the cancellation.
Update, 22 September 2026: Ministerial Direction 123 will replace Direction 110 on 31 October 2026. Among other changes, it adds drug offences with a sentence of five years or more to the conduct viewed very seriously, and lowers the risk test from whether a person would reoffend to whether they might. See our guide to Direction 123.
What Direction 110 requires
Ministerial Direction 110 guides these decisions, because it binds the Tribunal. Under the direction, a decision maker does not look at likelihood alone. Instead, the decision maker weighs the likelihood of reoffending against the seriousness of the harm if it occurs.
Therefore, a low risk rating does not settle the question. Where the potential harm is grave, a low risk may still be unacceptable. Drug supply offences fall into that category.
A contrast from the same month
In Barahuee [2026] ARTA 1697, the Tribunal revoked a cancellation despite a long offending history. There, the applicant showed abstinence, rehabilitation efforts and family support. The Tribunal found the risk acceptable, and other factors weighed heavily in his favour.
Therefore, the difference is instructive. In one case the rehabilitation had already happened. In the other it was a plan.
Practical lessons
Rehabilitation must be done, not promised
A Tribunal gives weight to completed, documented work. For example, that means program certificates, treatment records and reports from treating professionals. An intention to seek help after release carries little weight.
Rehabilitation must match the cause of the offending
In Li, the causes were gambling and drug use. Therefore, the relevant evidence was treatment for those two problems. General good behaviour does not fill that gap.
Start early
Character matters move through several stages. Our article on what the character unit checks explains the earliest stage. In addition, our article on the Administrative Review Tribunal explains the review process.
Outcomes in character matters depend on the facts. Each case is assessed on its own evidence.
Frequently asked questions
Does a low risk of reoffending mean a cancellation will be revoked?
No. Under Direction 110 the likelihood of reoffending is weighed against the seriousness of the harm if it occurs. A low risk can still be found unacceptable.
What evidence of rehabilitation carries weight?
Completed and documented rehabilitation that addresses the cause of the offending carries weight. A plan to seek help later carries much less.
Did family ties count in Li?
Yes. The applicant’s length of residence and her Australian citizen family weighed moderately in her favour, but protection of the community was given heavy weight.
What did the Tribunal decide?
The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to revoke the visa cancellation.
Sam Kanjo, Migration Lawyer, Skyline Migration Lawyers, Melbourne.
Sources: Li and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Migration) [2026] ARTA 2012 and Barahuee [2026] ARTA 1697, as summarised in MIA Notices 12 and 16.
Facing a cancellation or a revocation request?
Time limits in character matters are short. Call 03 8108 8748 or email info@skylinemigrationlawyers.com.au.
This article is general information only. It is not legal advice. Please seek advice about your own circumstances before you act.
