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

This matter concerned an application for review by the Applicant, a 61-year-old United Kingdom citizen, of the decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his Class XB Subclass 200 Refugee visa. The visa cancellation was based on the Applicant failing to pass the character test due to a substantial criminal record, including convictions for aggravated assault, dishonesty offences, and breaches of bail and intervention orders. The Applicant had arrived in Australia as a child in 1965 and had been warned in 2004 about potential visa cancellation if he committed further offences.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether it had jurisdiction to hear the application for review and, if so, whether there was "another reason" to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation under section 501CA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), considering Ministerial Direction 90. The Tribunal was required to assess the best interests of any minor children affected by the decision, weighing factors such as the nature of the relationship, the likelihood of a positive parental role, and the impact of the Applicant's conduct on children.

The Tribunal reasoned that it had jurisdiction to hear the application, finding that the Applicant had substantially complied with the requirements for a valid application for review, drawing parallels with a previous decision in *Miller*. In considering the substantive merits, the Tribunal found that primary consideration 3, concerning the best interests of minor children, weighed heavily against revoking the cancellation. Despite the Applicant having adult children and grandchildren, the evidence indicated limited contact with his adult children due to his criminal behaviour, and his adult children had minimised contact between him and his grandchildren for similar reasons. No specific evidence was provided regarding the Applicant's relationship with his minor grandchildren beyond their existence. The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant's prior conduct and its likely future impact, particularly concerning family violence, were significant factors against revocation.