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

This matter concerned an application by Boaza to revoke the cancellation of his visa, which had been cancelled under subsection 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) due to his substantial criminal record and failure to pass the character test. The Minister had not revoked the cancellation under subsection 501CA(4). The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine if there was another reason why the visa cancellation should be revoked, considering Direction No. 90.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant's ties to Australia, the extent of impediments to his removal, and the best interests of his minor child constituted reasons for revoking the visa cancellation. The Tribunal was directed to assess the strength, nature, and duration of the applicant's ties to Australia, including his length of residence, contributions to the community, and family and social links. It also had to consider the impact of removal on his severely disabled son, Child X, and whether revocation was in Child X's best interests.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal found that the applicant had resided in Australia for over 25 years, arrived as a young child, and contributed to the community through his work. He had significant family ties in Australia, including his mother, half-sister, and son, and a strong relationship with his partner, Ms Papera, who cared for their severely disabled son. The Tribunal considered the applicant's relationship with Ms Papera and their son to be a considerable factor weighing in favour of revocation, noting the demanding role Ms Papera played in their son's care. However, the Tribunal also noted that the applicant's conviction for damaging property involved family violence, which weighed against revocation. The Tribunal acknowledged the significant medical needs of Child X, detailing his complex health conditions and dependence on his mother for all daily activities, and that the applicant and Ms Papera desired to keep their family together to care for him.

The Tribunal ultimately set aside the decision under review and substituted a new decision.