Barton and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Barton against a decision to affirm the mandatory cancellation of his visa. Mr Barton's visa was cancelled under the character provisions of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) due to his substantial criminal record, which included driving offences, domestic violence offences, repeated breaches of apprehended violence orders, and drug misuse. The primary dispute before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was whether there was another compelling reason to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation, despite Mr Barton failing the character test.

The legal issues before the AAT were whether Mr Barton had established "another reason" why the mandatory visa cancellation should be revoked, as contemplated by section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). In determining this, the AAT was required to consider various factors, including the strength, nature, and duration of Mr Barton's ties to Australia, the best interests of any minor children affected by the decision, the expectations of the Australian community, and the protection of the Australian community. The AAT was also bound to follow the requirements set out in Direction No. 65, which guides the exercise of discretion in such matters.

The AAT reasoned that while Mr Barton had significant ties to Australia, including lengthy residence and long-term employment in the construction industry, these were outweighed by other considerations. The Tribunal noted that Mr Barton would be eligible for government support and welfare in New Zealand, where he was born and raised, and would have access to comparable health services. Furthermore, the AAT found that Mr Barton's submissions did not establish any specific impediments to his return to New Zealand. The Tribunal concluded that none of the "other considerations" operated so as to favour Mr Barton's application for revocation, and therefore, the mandatory cancellation of his visa was affirmed.