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

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa. The Applicant, a citizen of the United Kingdom who arrived in Australia as a 16-year-old and had resided there for 15 years, possessed an extensive criminal record including repeated violent offences, family violence, a serious driving record, and a long-standing methamphetamine addiction. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether there was "another reason" why the decision to cancel the Applicant's visa should be revoked, pursuant to section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).

The Tribunal considered the primary considerations outlined in Direction 99. While the best interests of the Applicant's minor children and his ties to the Australian community weighed in favour of revoking the cancellation, these were outweighed by the primary considerations of protecting the Australian community from criminal conduct, the seriousness of the Applicant's history of family violence, and the general expectations of the Australian community. The Tribunal assessed the Applicant's risk of re-offending as being at the high end of the low to moderate range.

The Tribunal reasoned that the Applicant did not pass the character test, meaning he could not rely on section 501CA(4)(b)(i) of the Act. The core of the determination therefore rested on whether there was "another reason" to revoke the cancellation under section 501CA(4)(b)(ii). Applying the principles from *Au v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs* and *Kim v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs*, the Tribunal found that the cumulative weight of the Applicant's serious criminal conduct, including violent offences and family violence, coupled with the risk of re-offending and the protection of the Australian community, meant there was no other reason to revoke the decision to cancel his visa. The Tribunal also refused the Applicant's request for a pseudonym and suppression orders, finding no evidence of harm to the Applicant, his family, or his children, and noting that the relevant information was already in the public domain.