Camarse and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)

This matter concerned an application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for the non-revocation of a mandatory visa cancellation. The applicant did not pass the character test, leading to the mandatory cancellation of his visa. The central dispute was whether there was "another reason" to revoke this cancellation, a determination guided by Ministerial Direction No. 99. The applicant argued for revocation, presenting evidence of strong protective factors, while the respondent contended for affirmation of the cancellation.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had established "another reason" to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation. This involved assessing the weight to be given to various factors, including the applicant's criminal history, the risk of re-offending, and the evidence of rehabilitation efforts. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider the primary consideration of protecting the Australian community, the nature and seriousness of the applicant's conduct, and the risk of future harm. Additionally, the Tribunal was to consider other relevant factors outlined in the Direction, such as the legal consequences of revocation, impediments to removal, and the impact on victims.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the applicant possessed a substantial criminal record, consisting of 27 offences over approximately 11 years, primarily theft and dishonesty charges, these were not of the most serious nature. Crucially, the Tribunal found that the applicant had demonstrated genuine efforts towards rehabilitation, including participation in programs like SMART Recovery and expressing a clear intention to engage with further rehabilitation services upon release. The Tribunal noted the applicant's eligibility for the Drug Court, though this referral could not be made due to jurisdictional issues. Weighing these factors against the seriousness of his past conduct, the Tribunal concluded that the protective factors, particularly the evidence of rehabilitation and remorse, outweighed the risk of future harm, constituting "another reason" to revoke the mandatory cancellation.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the decision under review and substituted it with a decision to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa.