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

This matter concerned an appeal by BRWS against a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs to refuse to grant a visa. The dispute centred on the applicant's character test, specifically whether the applicant had a substantial criminal record and whether there was another reason why the visa decision should be revoked. The case was heard by Senior Member Raif.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant possessed a substantial criminal record, thereby failing the character test, and, if so, whether there were other compelling reasons to revoke the original decision to refuse the visa. This involved a detailed consideration of the applicant's criminal offending in light of Direction 99, which mandates consideration of the protection of the Australian community, the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's conduct, and the risk of re-offending.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did have a substantial criminal record, meaning he did not pass the character test. However, the Tribunal then proceeded to consider whether there was another reason to revoke the decision, applying the principles outlined in Direction 99. This involved assessing the nature and seriousness of the applicant's conduct, including drug possession and driving offences, and the risk posed to the Australian community. The applicant provided explanations for his offending, including claims of ignorance regarding the illegality of certain substances and unawareness of licence suspension due to postal issues. The Tribunal noted the respondent's submission that the nature of the penalties imposed should be considered.

The Tribunal ultimately found that the applicant's criminal record meant he did not pass the character test, and the requirements of subparagraph 501CA(4)(b)(i) were not met. Despite this, the Tribunal continued to consider whether there was another reason to revoke the decision, indicating a further assessment of the competing considerations under Direction 99 was undertaken. The provided text concludes with the Tribunal's detailed consideration of the applicant's criminal history and explanations, but does not explicitly state the final orders or outcome of the appeal.