Afamiliona and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of Afamiliona and the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. The applicant, who had a substantial criminal record and did not pass the character test, sought the revocation of a visa cancellation decision made under subsection 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The delegate of the Minister had refused to revoke the cancellation, and the applicant sought review of that decision by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether there was "another reason" why the visa cancellation should be revoked, as contemplated by subsection 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act. This required the Tribunal to consider various factors, including the best interests of the applicant's minor children, the impact on victims of his offending, and the considerations outlined in Ministerial Direction No. 90. The Tribunal was tasked with assessing the applicant's risk to the Australian community, his rehabilitation, and any other relevant circumstances.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the protection of the Australian community and the applicant's claimed rehabilitation. While acknowledging the applicant's remorse and his family's support, the Tribunal expressed significant reservations about the effectiveness of the measures he had taken to prevent further offending. The Tribunal noted that previous interventions had not prevented his offending and that his claims of rehabilitation relied heavily on the observations of others, particularly his wife, who was also the victim of his most serious offence. The Tribunal found that the applicant's reform remained untested and that he had not sought professional interventions that might reduce the risk of reoffending.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the reviewable decision, meaning the visa cancellation was upheld. The Tribunal concluded that, despite the applicant's stated intentions and the support of his family, there was not another reason why the original visa cancellation decision should be revoked.