BPJK and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration)

This matter concerned the review of a delegate's decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's Global Special Humanitarian visa. The Applicant, a citizen of Liberia, arrived in Australia at age 16 and subsequently accumulated a significant criminal record, including convictions for disorderly behaviour, assaulting public officers, resisting police, and causing death by dangerous driving. His visa was mandatorily cancelled under s 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* due to failing the character test and serving a full-time custodial sentence. The Applicant sought revocation of this cancellation, but the Minister's delegate refused to exercise the discretion under s 501CA(4) of the Act.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the delegate's decision not to revoke the visa cancellation was correct. This involved assessing the Applicant's criminal conduct against the criteria set out in the relevant Direction, particularly concerning the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct. The Tribunal had to consider the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's past offending, including the frequency, trend of increasing seriousness, and cumulative effect of his offences, as well as the risk to the Australian community should the Applicant engage in further criminal or serious conduct.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal found the Applicant's conduct to be very serious, particularly the offence of causing death by dangerous driving, which resulted in the loss of a human life. The Tribunal noted the escalating seriousness of his offending, including violent and menacing behaviour such as assaulting taxi drivers and threatening to kill one of them. The Tribunal concluded that the nature of the harm the Applicant could cause to individuals or the Australian community if he reoffended would be serious, including the risk of injury or death, given his history of disrespect for lawful authority and the rights of others. The Tribunal found little difficulty in agreeing with the delegate's assessment that the Applicant's offending was very serious.