Alam and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration)

This matter concerned an application by Mr Alam for a visa, which the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection sought to refuse under section 501(1) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) on character grounds. The dispute arose from Mr Alam's admitted involvement in a fraudulent scheme between 2011 and 2012, where he provided false official documents and impersonated a Departmental Officer, ultimately receiving over $87,000. The County Court of Victoria had previously rejected Mr Alam's assertions regarding his intentions and repayments, concluding he was an active and willing participant in the fraud. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was tasked with determining whether to exercise the discretion to refuse the visa.

The Tribunal was required to consider the primary considerations outlined in Part B of the relevant Ministerial Direction, specifically the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct, the best interests of minor children in Australia, and the expectations of the Australian community. Within the consideration of community protection, the Tribunal had to assess the nature and seriousness of Mr Alam's conduct and the risk of him committing further offences. The Tribunal also had to weigh the best interests of Mr Alam's son, Rayyan, who was born in Australia and required ongoing specialised medical treatment for a congenital defect, treatment that was unlikely to be available in Bangladesh. Finally, the Tribunal needed to assess the expectations of the Australian community regarding the granting of visas to individuals with Mr Alam's criminal history.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal acknowledged the seriousness of Mr Alam's offending, particularly given the vulnerability of the victims. However, it found that Mr Alam's risk of reoffending was low, and therefore, the consideration of protecting the Australian community weighed slightly in favour of not refusing the visa. The Tribunal gave significant weight to the best interests of Mr Alam's son, noting the necessity of his ongoing medical treatment in Australia, which would not be available if the family were returned to Bangladesh. Regarding the expectations of the Australian community, the Tribunal applied the principle that this consideration should be viewed through the lens of a reasonable, middle-of-the-road member of the community, taking into account all the evidence. The Tribunal ultimately found that the cumulative weight of these considerations, particularly the best interests of the child and the low risk of reoffending, meant that the discretion to refuse the visa under section 501(1) of the Act should not be exercised.