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

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's Special Category (Class TY) (Subclass 444) visa. The Applicant's visa was mandatorily cancelled under section 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) because he did not pass the character test, being then serving a custodial sentence. The Applicant subsequently made representations requesting the revocation of this cancellation. The decision under review was made by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs, and the review was heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether there was "another reason" why the original decision to cancel the Applicant's visa should be revoked, as contemplated by section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act. This required the Tribunal to consider the Applicant's conduct, including a significant criminal history dating back to his youth, and an incident in immigration detention where he threatened a detention officer. The Tribunal also had to consider the principles of Ministerial Direction No 90 in its assessment.

The Tribunal reasoned that the Applicant's criminal history, which included multiple armed robberies and acts of violence resulting in significant injuries to victims, demonstrated a serious disregard for the law and the safety of others. Furthermore, the incident in immigration detention, where the Applicant verbally abused and physically threatened a detention officer, indicated a continued propensity for aggressive and unlawful behaviour. The Tribunal found that these factors, when weighed against any mitigating circumstances, did not constitute "another reason" to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision. The Tribunal applied the principles established in *Khalil v Minister for Home Affairs* regarding the delivery of decisions and reasons.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa.