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

This matter concerned the application by the Applicant for the revocation of the mandatory cancellation of his visa. The Applicant, a citizen of New Zealand who had resided in Australia since childhood, possessed a substantial criminal record, including convictions for offences such as aggravated burglary, theft of a motor vehicle, and robbery. The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether to exercise the discretion under s 501CA(4) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa, which had been triggered by his criminal history.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the Applicant passed the character test as defined by s 501 of the Act, and if not, whether there was "another reason" why the mandatory cancellation decision should be revoked. In assessing this, the Tribunal was guided by Direction 79, which outlines the considerations for decision-makers, including the primary consideration of protecting the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct. This involved evaluating the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's past conduct, the risk of future offending, and the strength of his ties to Australia.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant did not pass the character test due to his substantial criminal record, as defined by s 501(7) of the Act. Consequently, the focus shifted to whether there were grounds to revoke the cancellation under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii). The Tribunal considered the primary consideration of community protection, referencing Direction 79's emphasis on the seriousness of violent and sexual crimes, particularly those against women and children, and crimes against vulnerable individuals or government representatives. The Applicant's criminal history, including a robbery involving force against an elderly manager and a subsequent offence of stealing a motor vehicle and driving recklessly, was weighed against him. Furthermore, during the hearing, the Applicant exhibited abusive and misogynistic behaviour towards the Tribunal member and counsel, and then walked out of the proceedings, which significantly undermined any claim for revocation.

The Tribunal affirmed the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa. The Applicant's extensive criminal history, the seriousness of his offending, the risk of reoffending, and his disruptive and abusive conduct during the hearing led the Tribunal to conclude that there was no "another reason" to revoke the cancellation decision.