The proposition that representations in relation to a s 501 cancellation attempt are not ‘mandatory relevant considerations’ is highly doubtful if not at least reductionist. See the discussion in Viane v Minister  FCAFC 116 per Rangiah J - and Colvin J at -. What matters is whether the relevant aspect which was not considered could amount to a ‘representation’, in which case it must be considered.
See also Hay v Minister  FCAFC 149 per Colvin J.
It is not enough for a Tribunal to conclude, in a s 501 character review, that the applicant has a prospect of release from indefinite detention through the exercise of Ministerial discretion. The legal consequences of a character refusal will often be indefinite detention (for example, if the person engages Australia’s protection obligations), and that, and only that, is certain. It therefore must be considered by the Tribunal. Anything about what might happen (other than indefinite detention) to the applicant is speculative. See eg NBMZ v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection  FCAFC 38; 220 FCR 1; BCR16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection  FCAFC 96; DEY16  FCA 1261.