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

This matter concerned an application by BFMV (the applicant) for judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (the Minister) to affirm the mandatory cancellation of his visa. The applicant's visa was cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) as he did not pass the character test due to having a substantial criminal record under s 501(7). The applicant sought to have this mandatory cancellation revoked under s 501CA of the Act. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) heard the matter and affirmed the decision to refuse to revoke the mandatory cancellation. The applicant then sought review of the Tribunal's decision in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Tribunal had failed to give meaningful consideration to all relevant considerations when determining whether there was "another reason" why the mandatory visa cancellation should be revoked. Specifically, the court was required to consider whether the Tribunal adequately assessed the risk of re-offending, the protection and expectations of the Australian community, the best interests of the applicant's minor children, the applicant's non-refoulement obligations, the strength and duration of his ties to Australia, and any impediments to his establishing basic living standards if removed.

The court reasoned that the Tribunal was required to consider the factors outlined in Direction No 79, which guides decision-makers on the exercise of the discretion to revoke a mandatory visa cancellation. The Tribunal had regard to the applicant's criminal history, including multiple violent offences against a woman and children, and correctly identified these as serious matters requiring significant weight in the assessment of community protection. While the Tribunal acknowledged the applicant's ties to Australia, his family members, and his religious community, it found that these factors were outweighed by the seriousness of his offending and the risk he posed to the Australian community. The court found that the Tribunal had properly considered the relevant factors and applied the correct legal principles in reaching its decision.

The court dismissed the application for review, finding that the Tribunal had not erred in law. The Tribunal's decision to affirm the mandatory visa cancellation was upheld.