2013223 (Migration)

The applicant, a holder of a Subclass 417 Working Holiday visa, sought judicial review of the decision by the Minister to cancel their visa. The cancellation was based on the applicant's conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, a ground for cancellation under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The applicant contended that the delegate had erred in exercising their discretion to cancel the visa, arguing that the seriousness of the offence, the prison sentence imposed, and the applicant's subsequent expression of remorse had not been adequately considered.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the delegate had properly exercised the discretion afforded to them under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) when deciding to cancel the applicant's visa. This involved determining whether the delegate had taken into account all relevant considerations, including the seriousness of the offending conduct, the impact of the offending conduct, and any mitigating factors such as remorse, and had given appropriate weight to each.

The court affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that the delegate had properly considered the relevant factors. The court noted that the delegate had acknowledged the seriousness of the assault, the custodial sentence imposed, and the applicant's expression of remorse. However, the court found that these mitigating factors did not outweigh the seriousness of the offending conduct and the need to maintain the integrity of the migration program. The delegate's reasoning demonstrated a rational assessment of the competing considerations, and therefore, the exercise of discretion was not vitiated by error.