Adut and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Adut against the Minister for Home Affairs' decision to cancel his visa. Mr Adut, who arrived in Australia as a child refugee from South Sudan, had accumulated an extensive criminal record involving numerous convictions for serious and violent offences, including intentionally causing injury, recklessly causing injury, and unlawful assault. His most recent period of imprisonment concluded on 6 April 2018, after which he was taken into immigration detention.

The primary legal issue before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was whether there was "another reason" to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation under section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This required an evaluative process considering factors for and against revocation, consistent with the principles established in *Gaspar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection*. The Tribunal was bound to apply Direction No. 65, which guides decision-makers in considering visa refusal, cancellation, and revocation.

The Tribunal considered Mr Adut's submissions regarding his difficult background, including his flight from war-torn South Sudan, his experiences in refugee camps, and the challenges he faced upon arrival in Australia, such as racism and bullying. He also highlighted his struggles with alcohol and mental health, his efforts towards rehabilitation, and his desire to be a positive father to his two children and to support his family. However, the Tribunal also had regard to the extensive criminal history, the violent nature of many offences, and Mr Adut's repeated breaches of court orders, including bail and probation. The sentencing remarks from various courts detailed the seriousness of his offending, the fear he instilled in victims, and his persistent non-compliance with court orders and rehabilitation programs.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel Mr Adut's visa. The Tribunal found that while Mr Adut presented personal circumstances that might ordinarily be considered in favour of revocation, his extensive and serious criminal conduct, particularly the violent offences and persistent non-compliance with legal obligations, outweighed these factors. The Tribunal concluded that there was no "another reason" to revoke the mandatory cancellation, and therefore, the decision under review was affirmed.