Bridgman 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 visa. The applicant's visa was initially cancelled under s 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) due to the applicant having a substantial criminal record and serving a full-time custodial sentence. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was asked to determine whether the discretion to revoke this cancellation should be exercised.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had demonstrated that he passed the character test, as defined by s 501 of the Act, and whether there was "another reason" why the decision to cancel his visa should be revoked, as required by s 501CA(4) of the Act. In considering these issues, the Tribunal was required to have regard to Ministerial Direction No. 79, which outlines the framework for exercising this discretion, including considerations such as the protection of the Australian community from criminal conduct, the nature and seriousness of the offending, the risk of re-offending, and other considerations such as the strength, nature, and duration of the applicant's ties to Australia.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's criminal record, which included multiple terms of imprisonment and offences against women, was serious and weighed heavily against revocation. While the applicant had made representations and provided some evidence of his circumstances, the Tribunal was not satisfied that he had accepted responsibility for his crimes or demonstrated that he would be a positive influence for his children. The Tribunal considered the principles outlined in Ministerial Direction No. 79, particularly the seriousness of violent and sexual crimes against women, and the importance of protecting the Australian community. The Tribunal found that the risk of re-offending and the seriousness of the past offending were significant factors that outweighed other considerations, such as the applicant's ties to Australia.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa. The Tribunal concluded that there was no "another reason" to justify the revocation of the visa cancellation, finding that the applicant had not satisfied the requirements for the exercise of the discretion in his favour.