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

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate of the Minister's decision not to revoke the cancellation of the applicant's visa. The applicant, a 22-year-old Syrian citizen, had his visa cancelled under s 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) due to having a substantial criminal record, including convictions for possession of a knife, reckless wounding in company, and aggravated robbery. The applicant sought revocation of this cancellation under s 501CA(4) of the Act.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant passed the character test, and if not, whether there was "another reason" why the visa cancellation should be revoked. The court was required to apply Ministerial Direction No. 90, which outlines the framework for considering such requests, including the weight to be given to primary and other considerations.

The court found that the applicant did not pass the character test, as he had been sentenced to terms of imprisonment totalling more than 12 months, thus satisfying the definition of a "substantial criminal record" under s 501(7)(c) and (d) of the Act. Consequently, the applicant could not rely on s 501CA(4)(b)(i) for revocation. The court then considered whether there was "another reason" under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii). Applying Direction 90, the court noted that primary considerations, such as the protection of the Australian community from criminal conduct, generally carry greater weight than other considerations. Despite acknowledging factors weighing in favour of revocation, including the applicant's post-traumatic stress disorder and his young age upon arrival in Australia, the court determined that these did not constitute "another reason" to revoke the cancellation, given the seriousness of his offending.

The court affirmed the delegate's decision, concluding that there was not another reason to revoke the cancellation of the applicant's visa.