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

This matter concerned an application by a citizen of the United Kingdom for review of the Minister's decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his Class BF Transnational (Permanent) visa. The cancellation was based on the applicant failing to pass the character test due to a substantial criminal record, which included numerous convictions for alcohol and drug abuse, violent crimes, drug and dishonesty offences, and conditional liberty offences. The applicant had lived in Australia since the age of three but never became an Australian citizen.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether there was another reason to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation, applying Ministerial Direction No. 90. This involved assessing the nature and seriousness of the applicant's conduct, the risk to the Australian community, and any other compelling reasons to allow the applicant to remain in Australia. The Tribunal also had to consider the applicant's personal circumstances, including his long-term ties to Australia, his relationship with his family, and his efforts towards rehabilitation.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to revoke the cancellation. It found that the applicant's criminal history was extensive and serious, involving violent acts, dishonesty, and repeated breaches of the law, including offences committed while under conditional liberty and warnings from immigration authorities. While acknowledging the applicant's claims of changed behaviour and insight into his past conduct, the Tribunal found that these were not sufficiently compelling to outweigh the primary consideration of protecting the Australian community from further criminal or serious conduct. The Tribunal noted that the applicant's son, while present in Australia, had indicated that the applicant leaving him without a father figure was not in the son's best interests. The Tribunal concluded that the cumulative effect of the applicant's offending and the risk posed to the community meant that there was no other reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation.