如果申请人在国内曾经有过犯罪记录，如果罪行不超过1年，一般认为可以满足移民的品格要求。移民法s501(7) 定义了substantial criminal record。主要包括以下几点。
- the person has been sentenced to death
- the person has been sentenced to imprisonment for life
- the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more
- the person has been sentenced to 2 or more terms of imprisonment, where the total of those terms is 12 months or more
- the person has been acquitted of an offence on the grounds of unsoundness of mind or insanity, and as a result the person has been detained in a facility or institution;
- the person has been found by a court to not be fit to plead, in relation to an offence.
基本可以理解为如果申请人的被判的刑期加在一起超过12个月。那么申请人就有substantial criminal record (严重犯罪记录）并且这个 12 个月imprisonment 的意思是full time incarceration, 也就是说must be serving a sentence of imprisonment, on a full-time basis in a custodial institution. 对于那种判处缓刑的人，并没有真正坐牢，是可以满足character test 的。
Pearson v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] FCAFC 203
The Full Court’s decision in Pearson v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] FCAFC 203 found that an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of at least 12 months did not constitute a ‘term of imprisonment of 12 months or more’ and therefore would not result in a mandatory visa cancellation under s 501(3A) of the Act.
在Pearson 这个判决后，实质上放宽了对申请人品格的在考虑是否签证取消时要求，只要单次犯罪不要超过12个月刑期就可以。
根据s501 (6) 如果申请人有substantial criminal record 或者有其他的特定违法行为，比如越狱，逃出拘留中心，或者是犯罪团伙的成员,或者会来澳洲从事犯罪活动。那么申请人就不能满足character test. (品格测试）
The concept of “risk” for the purposes of section 501(6)(d)(i) of the Act involves a comparatively low threshold. As noted by the respondent in its submissions, section 501(6)(d)(i) as previously drafted required there to be a “significant risk” of future criminal conduct. The word “significant” was deleted under the Migration Amendment (Character and General Visa Cancellation) Bill 2014 (Cth). The explanatory memorandum accompanying that Bill recorded as follows:
“The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the threshold of risk that a decision maker can accept before finding that the person does not pass the character test in relation to section 501(6)(d) of the Migration Act. The intention is that the level of risk required is more than a minimal or trivial likelihood of risk, without requiring the decision maker to prove that it amounts to a significant risk”.
Therefore, it is only required that the risk is more than a minimal or trivial likelihood.
如果申请人不能通过品格测试，需要Direction No 90 来判断是否可以给签证。
主要考虑是事项是 （1）protection of Australia community from criminal or other serious conduct. (保护澳洲人民的财产安全, 这里如果有clinical psychologist 的report 会有很大的帮助。
（2）whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence (是否有家庭暴力的情况）
（3）the best interests of minor children in Australia (在澳洲未成年人的利益）
（4）expectation of Australian community (澳洲社区的期望）
如果申请人是非暴力犯罪，比如说贪污，行贿受贿这种罪行，那么根据Dircection No 90的8.1.2来看 the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engaged in further criminal or other serious conduct. 那么在澳洲再犯的机会比较小。所以还是有可能申请到签证进入澳洲的。
对于中国的贪污罪行也可能有另一种解释方式。
Individuals critical of the Party and its leadership can also face detention and other consequences ostensibly for corruption charges.
country-information-report-china-22122021
根据 VZSJ v Minister [2026] FCA 1280 — guilty plea之后挑战刑事事实：仍可能承担“heavy onus。法院确认一个很实用的区分：如果要挑战并非构成取消权力基础的其他定罪所依据的事实，申请人通常承担较重的证明负担；但如果定罪来自 guilty plea，这个负担原则上可能比经过完整contested trial后的定罪更容易满足。问题最终还是看有没有可靠证据解释为什么当年的事实基础不应被接受。
本案申请人失败的关键，是当年警方Facts Sheet在sentencing时被提交且没有异议，而后来“律师叫我认罪”“其实只是推了一下”的解释缺乏独立支持；法院认为ART有权优先采用contemporaneous official records。
结合 Nunez [2026] FCAFC 111 一起看，而不能理解成“guilty plea以后绝对不能挑战事实”。如果character客户要挑战旧刑事facts，应尽量取得：
- 当年律师或barrister的证据；
- plea negotiations材料；
- sentencing transcript；
- agreed facts / Facts Sheet及是否曾被争议；
- contemporaneous medical、police或witness evidence。
仅靠客户和伴侣几年后重新叙述事实，证明力通常较弱。
参考案例 Staffieri and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] AATA 321 (18 April 2008)
https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/AATA/2008/321.html
Li and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2024] AATA 3551 (9 October 2024)
一名中国籍律师因诈骗挪用逾40万澳元被判监禁并取消签证，但AAT考虑到他自16岁起在澳生活18年、与澳洲联系深厚且再犯风险低，最终推翻了移民局拒绝撤销签证取消的决定
Liu and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2025] ARTA 324 (4 April 2025)
https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/ARTA/2025/324.html
一名曾在中国被判刑17年的父亲申请870签证被拒，虽坚持遭诬陷并希望来澳与家人团聚，但ART以现存定罪为基础，认为其再犯风险及严重品格问题超过家庭团聚因素，最终维持拒签。
Heung and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Migration) [2026] ARTA 1962 (9 September 2026)
一名有香港犯罪记录且曾向移民局隐瞒前科的820申请人，因ART认定其已长期改过、再犯风险很低，且拒签会对夫妻生活造成重大影响，最终成功推翻品格拒签决定。
https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/ARTA/2026/1962.html#fnB30