Campbell-Smith and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)

The case of *Campbell-Smith and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)* concerned a New Zealand citizen whose Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) Visa was mandatorily cancelled due to failure to pass the character test, stemming from a substantial criminal record. The applicant sought to have this cancellation revoked under section 501CA of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), arguing that "another reason" existed for the Tribunal to set aside the cancellation. Ministerial Direction No. 99 was applied in the assessment.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Tribunal had erred in law by failing to adequately consider the applicant's rehabilitation efforts and the risk to the Australian community when determining if there was "another reason" to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation. Specifically, the court examined whether the Tribunal gave sufficient weight to the applicant's engagement with rehabilitation programs for substance abuse and mental health issues, and whether it properly assessed the likelihood of reoffending and the potential harm to the community.

The court's reasoning focused on the application of Ministerial Direction No. 99, which requires consideration of factors such as the protection of the Australian community, the applicant's character, and the best interests of minor children. While acknowledging the applicant's criminal history, which included property, fraud, and drug-related offences, the court scrutinised the Tribunal's assessment of the applicant's evidence of rehabilitation. The Tribunal had noted limited support from family and gave some weight to a support letter, but ultimately found that the applicant's offending was serious and continued despite warnings. The court considered the applicant's concessions regarding the psychological harm caused to victims and the repeated breach of community trust.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation. The court found that the Tribunal had applied the relevant legal principles and Ministerial Direction No. 99, and that its findings regarding the seriousness of the offending and the risk to the community were open to it on the evidence before it. Therefore, the applicant's appeal was dismissed.