Abstract: As of late 2025, with the full implementation of Ministerial Direction 110, the enforcement of the 'Character Test' by the Department of Home Affairs has reached its strictest level in recent years. Data indicates a significant rise in visa cancellations involving family violence and recidivism. In the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), the balance between 'community safety' and 'ties to Australia' has fundamentally shifted. This article provides an in-depth analysis of current enforcement trends and jurisprudential directions.
November 18, 2025 — Looking back over the past 18 months, the most significant shift in the Australian immigration legal landscape has been the comprehensive penetration and strict enforcement of Ministerial Direction 110.
In mid-2024, responding to public concerns that the previous Direction 99 might allow serious offenders to retain their visas, the Australian government decisively introduced the tougher Direction 110. Now, at the close of 2025, the profound impact of this policy shift on non-citizens is clear: the core principle that "holding a visa is a privilege, not a right" is being repeatedly reinforced through thousands of visa cancellation cases.
For visa holders facing Character Issues, understanding the current enforcement environment is no longer optional; it is a prerequisite for survival.
Based on an analysis of the latest 2024-2025 financial year data from the Department of Home Affairs and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), as well as recent case law, the Immigix Legal Team has identified three key changes:
Under the old Direction 99, decision-makers were required to give considerable weight to an applicant's "ties to Australia" (particularly for New Zealand citizens who were long-term residents). However, Direction 110 explicitly elevated "The safety of the Australian community" to the highest priority Primary Consideration.
In AAT hearings throughout 2025, we have observed a distinct pattern of adjudication: once an applicant's offending involves violence, sexual offences, or serious family violence, the weight of "protecting the community" almost invariably outweighs the weight of "ties to Australia," even if the applicant has lived in Australia for decades and all their relatives are here, provided the Member finds even a minimal "risk of reoffending."
Previously, the "length of residence in Australia" was often a powerful shield against visa cancellation. Under the framework of Direction 110, the influence of this factor has been significantly diminished.
The legal logic has shifted: the government's position is now that if you have lived in Australia for a long time, you should be more aware of Australian social values and legal boundaries. Consequently, crimes committed by long-term residents may not attract sympathy but rather be viewed as a more serious betrayal of the Australian social contract. In multiple cases we represented this year, we have seen an increase in the deportation of "1.5 generation immigrants" (those who arrived as children) due to criminal offending.
In 2025, societal focus on Family Violence in Australia remains at its peak. Reflected in immigration enforcement, any record of family violence—even without a custodial sentence, such as breaching an Apprehended Violence Order (AVO/IVO)—is highly likely to trigger Discretionary Cancellation under Section 501.
When assessing family violence cases, decision-makers no longer look solely at the sentence imposed. They scrutinise Police Facts to examine patterns of behaviour, the vulnerability of victims, and whether the perpetrator has demonstrated genuine remorse through behavioural change programs.
For applicants who have received a Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOICC) or a refusal letter, appealing to the AAT remains the best avenue to save their visa, but the appellate environment in 2025 has become much more rigorous.
1. Granularity of Evidence Requirements
Submitting a few character reference letters from family and friends is far from sufficient. The AAT's scrutiny is now meticulous, especially regarding the assessment of "risk of reoffending." Applicants must provide independent professional evidence, such as:
2. Intensified Hearing Inquisitions
In recent hearings, AAT Members have significantly intensified their cross-examination of applicants. They repeatedly question the applicant's insight into their past offending. If an applicant displays blame-shifting, minimisation of the offence, or a lack of empathy during the hearing, this is often the decisive factor in affirming the cancellation decision.
The Immigix team must reiterate a common misconception: many believe that only a sentence of 12 months or more (a "substantial criminal record") leads to visa issues.
This is not the case. Under Section 501(6) of the Migration Act, decision-makers can find a person is not of good character based on their "General Conduct." Data from 2025 shows an increase in visa cancellations based on suspicion of involvement in criminal groups or long-term anti-social behaviour, even without convictions.
Furthermore, cases involving the intersection of bogus documents/false information (PIC 4020) and character issues are on the rise. If an applicant conceals criminal history during disclosure, the dishonesty itself is sufficient grounds for a finding of bad character, even if the record itself was minor.
Despite the grim situation, a visa cancellation is not necessarily the end. The law still grants non-citizens the right to appeal. To secure a favourable outcome under the high pressure of Direction 110, highly specialised strategies must be adopted:
The Australian immigration rule of law environment in 2025 clearly demonstrates: Australia welcomes immigrants but has zero tolerance for crime. Ministerial Direction 110 is not just a document; it is a sword of Damocles hanging over every non-citizen. Maintaining a good character record is the cornerstone for every visa holder's long-term future in Australia.
For those currently in the midst of this legal turmoil, remember that while professional legal aid cannot change the facts of the past, it can maximally influence the outcome of the future.