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

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate of the Minister's decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa. The applicant, who arrived in Australia in 2012, did not dispute that he did not pass the character test due to having a substantial criminal record, specifically a sentence of three years imprisonment imposed on 29 August 2018. The core of the dispute before the Tribunal was whether there was "another reason" why the mandatory cancellation of his visa should be revoked, as permitted by section 501CA(4)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

The Tribunal was required to determine if any countervailing considerations were sufficient to justify revoking the mandatory visa cancellation, despite the applicant failing the character test. This involved assessing the primary considerations outlined in Direction 90, including the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct, the best interests of any minor children in Australia, and the expectations of the Australian community. The Tribunal also had to consider other relevant factors, such as international non-refoulement obligations and the applicant's links to the Australian community.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal applied the principles set out in Direction 90, which guide decision-makers on whether to revoke a mandatory visa cancellation. The Tribunal acknowledged Australia's sovereign right to determine who may remain in the country and the expectation that non-citizens will be law-abiding. It noted that the applicant's criminal record featured regular and serious violent offences, including armed robbery and assault occasioning bodily harm, with the latter involving significant injuries to the victim. While the applicant presented evidence of his difficult past, including alleged involvement in the Somalian War and subsequent psychological impacts, and evidence from his family regarding his assistance and perceived change, the Tribunal weighed these against the seriousness of his offending and the primary considerations. The Tribunal ultimately affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that there was no other reason why the mandatory cancellation should be revoked.