Another 501 deportee has won the right to stay in Australia after being jailed for assaulting his two adopted sons.

Samoan-New Zealander Faapio Pili Fuamatu narrowly avoided being deported back to New Zealand after he appealed against the revocation of his visa and won, despite a history of family violence.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal of Australia has allowed the appeal because to remove Fuamatu from Australia would "devastate" his family, including the two minor children.

The tribunal said Fuamatu's links to the Australian community, his good work history, and the real likelihood he would be law-abiding in the future, counted in his favour when it decided to exercise its discretion and revoke the original decision to deport him.

Section 501 deportations have sent more than 2500 New Zealand citizens with a criminal history, back from Australia since 2015.

Fuamatu moved to Australia in 1995, when he was 28.

The reason for the mandatory cancellation of the 55-year-old's visa was because of a criminal history that meant he failed the character test necessary to stay in Australia.

Fuamatu was convicted of two counts of assault on his sons on November 4, 2020, for which he was sentenced to 20 months in jail.

His criminal history dated back to 1997 and involved violence against family members, as well as other offending, including assaulting his wife, traffic offences, and property offences, plus some remote convictions in New Zealand.

The other major offence the tribunal was concerned with was an assault with a weapon after Fuamatu drove a car into his daughter's boyfriend in 2008.

• Drug trafficker born in NZ denied Australian citizenship, despite Oz parent
• 'Unheard of': How a 501 deportee won right to return to Oz

The tribunal noted Fuamatu deliberately drove his car at the victim and used the vehicle to pin the younger man to a brick pillar because he apparently did not like the relationship between the young man and his daughter.

While the boyfriend was incapacitated by his injuries, Fuamatu punched him in the face and stomped on his head numerous times.

The victim suffered lacerations and tendon damage which required treatment.

The tribunal noted Fuamatu lied "on a significant matter" during his evidence saying he did not know it was his daughter's boyfriend and he thought the person was an intruder when he drove into them.

It said his version of events was inconsistent with his 2009 conviction over the assault.

At the time he was sentenced to 18 months jail for the assault with a weapon and three years and nine months for assault causing actual bodily harm.

However, the tribunal said it was prepared to discount the "deliberate behaviour" of Fuamatu in his cross-examination and not penalise or punish him in its overall consideration of the case.

Fuamatu was warned in 2011 of the danger to his visa and for a time he did not offend.

But in November 2020 Fuamatu repeatedly hit his two adopted sons, now aged 13 and 15, with the handle of a broomstick.

One boy was hit on the shoulders and the other on the head and jaw. Both boys received bruising and one had damage to his ribcage.

The behaviour of the boys at the time was not relevant the tribunal said, and it appeared alcohol did not play a major part in the assaults.

The tribunal said the lack of offending between 2008 and 2020 indicated someone who demonstrated increased maturity and the possibility of being able to better control his violent behaviour.

It said in much of the family violence offending, Fuamatu's cultural and personal attitudes - the result of his own cultural background and upbringing - had come into play.

"Although this perhaps makes the applicant's behaviour somewhat more comprehensible, it does not excuse nor ameliorate the seriousness of that conduct in 2008 and 2020 or at any other time."

Fuamatu had undertaken a number of courses while in prison to rehabilitate, which the tribunal took into account.

The tribunal said it was clear he was genuinely remorseful and during a hearing for the case, Fuamatu displayed a "suitable, genuine and insightful appreciation" of his offending.

In considering the risk to the Australian public, while the tribunal said family violence was particularly serious offending, his offences and their seriousness were lessening over time.

It also said Fuamatu now appreciated the danger of his visa being revoked. He also had a large and supportive family.

The tribunal received many references from Fuamatu's family including children ranging in age from teenagers to early 20s, outlining each one's relationship with their father and expressing concern that he should remain in Australia as head of the family.

One son in his 20s said he had experienced loss and financial and mental anguish because his father had not been present in his life, and he was worried about the future should his father be deported.

The tribunal acknowledged the children's mother would suffer enormously, including emotional and financial hardship, if Fuamatu was removed.

"This collection of statements made by the family are indeed powerful and compelling as to the reasons why the applicant should not be sent to his home country."

While Fuamatu's serious offending would usually disentitle him from staying in Australia, the tribunal said after lengthy consideration, it decided - "not without real hesitation" - there were powerful factors that outweighed the circumstances against him.

These were the emotional and financial impact on his family including the younger children if he was deported, his links to the community, good work history, and the real likelihood there would be better future conduct.

- Natalie Akoorie, Open Justice