![Low Risk, Still Refused: The Rehabilitation File Missing in Li [2026] ARTA 2012](https://themigrationlawyers.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/2026-10-12-low-risk-still-refused-li-arta-2012-rehabilitation-evidence-featured.jpg)
Huong is 58 and has lived in Springvale for 19 years. In August a court sentenced her to three years for supplying methamphetamine. Because the sentence passed 12 months, the Department cancelled her visa by law while she was in custody. The notice arrived on 6 October 2026. Therefore, she has until 3 November to ask the Minister to revoke the cancellation. Her son wants the request to say she will join a gambling program after release. On 14 September 2026 the Administrative Review Tribunal explained why that sentence loses cases. In Li [2026] ARTA 2012 the member accepted a low risk of reoffending. The visa was still not restored.
Short answer: A low risk rating does not decide a revocation request. Under Direction 110 the decision maker weighs how likely reoffending is against how serious the harm would be. In Li the harm from drug supply outweighed a low risk. No completed rehabilitation addressed the gambling or the drug use. You have 28 days from the cancellation notice to make the request. If a delegate refuses, you have 9 days to reach the Tribunal.
Three clocks run before anyone reads your evidence
Character matters move on short, fixed periods. Consequently, the evidence has to be ready before the argument, not after it. The timeline below follows a mandatory cancellation from the day the notice arrives.
- Day 0The Department gives notice that your visa was cancelled under section 501(3A). The notice invites you to ask for revocation.
- Day 28Last day to request revocation under section 501CA(4). Home Affairs states the period as 28 days from the notice.
- DecisionA delegate decides whether to revoke. If the Minister decides personally, the Tribunal cannot review the outcome.
- Plus 9 daysA delegate’s refusal can go to the Administrative Review Tribunal. You must apply within 9 days of notification, and the Tribunal has no power to extend that period.
- Plus 84 daysBecause you were in Australia when the decision was made, the review is expedited. The Tribunal must decide within 84 days of the date you were notified.
| Step | Time limit or charge | Stated by |
|---|---|---|
| Request to revoke a mandatory cancellation | 28 days from the notice | Home Affairs |
| Application to the Tribunal after a delegate refuses | 9 days from notification, no extension | Administrative Review Tribunal |
| Tribunal decision in an expedited character review | Within 84 days of notification | Administrative Review Tribunal |
| Tribunal application fee, character review | $1,195, paid at lodgement | Administrative Review Tribunal |
Our refusals and review page sets out each stage and who can apply. In addition, the earlier article on what to send after a VACCU referral covers the front end. That stage comes before any cancellation.
What the Tribunal accepted in Li, and what it still refused
The applicant was 65. She had lived in Australia for 22 years. A court sentenced her to four years and four months. The offences were possessing methamphetamine with intent to sell or supply, and possessing stolen property. Police searched her twice, and the second search took place while she was on bail. In addition, she had a long record of casino trespass offences that grew out of a gambling addiction. A delegate refused to revoke the cancellation, so she applied to the Tribunal.
The member found the offending very serious and the pattern escalating. However, the expert evidence put her individual risk of reoffending at low, and the member accepted it. That acceptance did not save the visa. Instead, the member asked what would happen if she did reoffend. Drug supply causes grave harm to the community. Therefore, even a low chance of that harm was unacceptable.
Two facts drove that conclusion. First, nothing in the file documented rehabilitation that dealt with the gambling or the drug use. Second, her own evidence was that she intended to address those needs after release. The Tribunal treated that as a plan, not a change.
How the factors fell on each side
Direction 110 binds the Tribunal. It lists the considerations and tells the member how to weigh them. In Li the balance looked like this.
| Consideration | Which way it pulled | Weight given |
|---|---|---|
| Protection of the Australian community | Against revocation | Heavy |
| Expectations of the Australian community | Against revocation | Heavy |
| 22 years of residence, an Australian citizen son and a granddaughter | For revocation | Moderate |
| Impediments she would face on return to China | For revocation | Slight |
Two heavy factors against, one moderate and one slight in favour. As a result, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to revoke. Her length of residence was real and it counted. Nevertheless, it could not carry a file with no rehabilitation in it.
Done, promised or unrelated: three kinds of rehabilitation evidence
The same month, the Tribunal revoked a cancellation in Barahuee [2026] ARTA 1697 despite a long offending history. The difference between the two files is the lesson. Use the tabs to see where your evidence sits.
In Barahuee the applicant showed abstinence, rehabilitation efforts and family support that was already in place. Because the work had happened, the member found the risk acceptable. Other factors then weighed heavily in his favour, and the cancellation was revoked.
In Li the applicant said she would seek help for gambling and drug use after release. An intention carries little weight. It gives the member nothing to test. The cause of the offending stays untouched on the day of decision.
Good conduct in custody, work references and letters about hardship are all relevant. However, none of them answers the question the member must ask. If the offending came from gambling and drugs, only treatment for gambling and drugs fills the gap.
The file Huong’s request needs before 3 November
Huong is in custody, so her options are narrower. Even so, most prisons run drug and alcohol programs and some run gambling counselling. Every completed session is evidence. Tick what you can gather in the time left.
If a program cannot finish inside 28 days, say so in the request. State what has started, when it ends and who will confirm it. Then the Tribunal file, if it comes to that, can carry the certificate. The expedited timetable means the hearing will arrive quickly, so the program dates matter.
What changes if the decision lands after 31 October 2026?
Ministerial Direction 123 replaces Direction 110 on 31 October 2026. The risk question moves from whether you would reoffend to whether you might. Drug offences with a sentence of five years or more join the conduct viewed very seriously. Ties to Australia drop to a lower tier. Consequently, a file like Li’s faces a steeper climb after that date. Our article on Direction 123 and the decision date works through the before and after.
Why the risk number is not the case
Applicants often arrive with a low risk score and believe the hard part is done. Li shows the Tribunal reads that report as one input. The member then asks two more questions. What harm follows if the assessment is wrong? And what has the applicant already done to make it right? A completed program answers the second question with a document. A promise answers it with a sentence. In Li, the sentence was not enough. Therefore, start the treatment before the request, and let the request report what has been done.
Outcomes in character matters turn on the evidence in each file. If a cancellation notice has arrived, contact us with the notice date. The 28 days can then be counted today.
Frequently asked questions
How long do I have to ask for revocation after a mandatory cancellation?
Home Affairs states 28 days from the notice. The request goes to the Minister under section 501CA(4). Count the period from the date on the notice and diarise the last day with room to spare.
The delegate refused to revoke. How quickly must I apply to the Tribunal?
Within 9 days of being notified, and the Tribunal cannot extend that period. If you were in Australia when the decision was made, the review is expedited. The Tribunal must then decide within 84 days of notification. The application fee for a character review is $1,195.
Can a program completed in prison count as rehabilitation?
Yes, if it addresses the cause of the offending. In Li the problem was not where the applicant was. It was that no treatment for gambling or drug use had happened at all. A completed custodial program with a certificate and a coordinator’s letter is documented rehabilitation.
My offending had two causes, gambling and drugs. Do I need evidence for both?
Yes. The Tribunal in Li looked for rehabilitation that matched each cause. Treatment for one leaves the other unanswered, and general good behaviour does not fill the gap. Gather records for each problem separately.
Did the Tribunal accept that the applicant in Li was a low risk?
It did. The member accepted expert evidence that her individual risk was low. However, under Direction 110 the likelihood is weighed against the seriousness of the harm if reoffending occurs. Because drug supply causes grave harm, even a low risk was found unacceptable. The decision not to revoke was affirmed.
The 28-day revocation period and the mandatory cancellation threshold were verified 12 October 2026 on the Home Affairs page Character requirements for visas. That page still named Direction 110 on that date. The 9-day application period, the 84-day expedited timetable and the $1,195 fee were verified the same day on the Administrative Review Tribunal page Immigration and citizenship. Li [2026] ARTA 2012 and Barahuee [2026] ARTA 1697 are described from the Migration Institute of Australia’s summaries in MIA Notices 12 and 16. The published decisions were not accessible to us at publication. Direction 123 is described from the MIA summary of 22 September 2026.
General information as at 12 October 2026. Huong is a fictional example. Not legal advice. Outcomes in character matters depend on the evidence in each file.