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

This matter concerned an application by Mr. Bui, a citizen of Vietnam, for the revocation of a mandatory visa cancellation. Mr. Bui's visa had been cancelled due to a conviction for a serious offence. The delegate of the Minister had refused to revoke this cancellation, and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to consider the matter afresh, having regard to a direction made by the Minister under section 499 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were to determine whether there was "another reason" to revoke the mandatory cancellation, considering the Minister's Direction No. 90. This involved assessing several primary considerations outlined in the Direction, including the protection of the Australian community, the best interests of any affected minor child, and the expectations of the Australian community. The Tribunal also had to consider other relevant factors, such as the extent of impediments to removal, links to the Australian community, and any other pertinent considerations.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the Direction mandated consideration of certain factors, it did not limit the Tribunal's task to those alone. In assessing the protection of the Australian community, the Tribunal noted that Mr. Bui's offending, while serious, did not fall into the most severe categories of violent or sexual crimes against women or children. The sentence imposed by the court suggested his conduct was at the lower end of the range for the offence, although the gravity of the offence itself was acknowledged. Regarding the best interests of Mr. Bui's seven-year-old son, an Australian citizen, the Tribunal found that Mr. Bui had been an involved father and was likely to continue to play a positive role in his son's life, provided he did not re-offend. The Tribunal also considered and denied the applicant's request to present evidence of courses undertaken in prison and potential future courses, finding ample opportunity had been given to present such evidence.

The Tribunal ultimately set aside the decision under review and substituted a new decision.