Adams and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)

This matter concerned an application by the Applicant to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) to review the decision to cancel his visa under subsection 501(2) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) due to failure to pass the character test. The Applicant had violently assaulted his partner, causing her physical injuries and attempting to strangle and suffocate her, while their infant child was present.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether there was "another reason" why the Applicant's visa cancellation should be revoked, considering the mandatory considerations outlined in Ministerial Direction 90 (MD90). Specifically, the Tribunal had to assess the weight to be given to various criteria, including the protection of the Australian community, family violence, the best interests of minor children, the expectations of the Australian community, non-refoulement obligations, impediments to removal, impact on victims, and the strength, nature, and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia.

The Tribunal reasoned that the Applicant's conduct constituted serious offending, particularly in the context of family violence, and that the risk of future offending could not be discounted, especially given his prior anger management issues and a previous protection order that had been breached. While acknowledging the limited favourability of criteria such as the best interests of minor children and impediments to removal, the Tribunal found that these were outweighed by the significant negative considerations, particularly the severity of the family violence. The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant had already been afforded a second chance, which he had demonstrably failed to uphold.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the Applicant's visa, finding that the cancellation was the correct and preferable decision based on the evidence and the application of Ministerial Direction 90. The criteria weighing against the Applicant were assessed as moderately against him (protection of the Australian community and expectations of the community) or heavily against him (family violence), while those in his favour were only to a limited extent.