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

This matter concerned an application by Mr. Ahmed for judicial review of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs' decision to affirm the non-revocation of a mandatory cancellation of his XB Subclass 202 Global Special Humanitarian visa. The applicant did not pass the character test, and the central dispute revolved around whether there was "another reason" to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision, as contemplated by the relevant provisions of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The case was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine whether the Minister's delegate had properly considered and applied Ministerial Direction No. 90, specifically the primary and other considerations outlined within it, when deciding not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa. This involved assessing whether the delegate had given sufficient weight to the applicant's circumstances against the overarching principles of protecting the Australian community and the nation's sovereign right to control who enters and remains in the country.

The court's reasoning focused on the principles articulated in Ministerial Direction No. 90, which guide decision-makers in character-related matters. The delegate considered the applicant's progressive offending history, noting a lack of deterrence from past penalties and a continued disregard for the safety of other road users. The court found that the applicant's unlawful conduct could be characterised as "very serious." In assessing the risk to the Australian community, the delegate considered the nature of potential harm, the likelihood of re-offending, and the cumulative effect of these factors. The court was satisfied that further offending by the applicant could lead to catastrophic physical, psychological, and material harm to individuals and the community, particularly given the circumstances of his most recent violent offence. The delegate concluded that the risk of repetition of such conduct was unacceptable, and therefore, the decision to affirm the non-revocation of the visa was upheld.