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

CDHQ, a South Sudanese citizen, sought review of the delegate's decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his Global Special Humanitarian (Class XB) (Subclass 202) visa. The visa had been cancelled under subsection 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) due to CDHQ failing the character test, stemming from a conviction for serious assault on a police officer and an extensive criminal history. CDHQ made representations for the cancellation to be revoked under subsection 501CA(4) of the Act, arguing there was another reason why the decision should be revoked.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether there was "another reason" why the mandatory visa cancellation should be revoked, as contemplated by section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act. This involved considering CDHQ's representations holistically and assessing whether a substantial, significant, and clearly expressed claim for revocation had been genuinely considered. The Tribunal also had regard to Ministerial Direction No. 99, which outlines considerations for such decisions.

The Tribunal applied the principles established in *Bettencourt v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs* [2021] FCAFC 172, which require a genuine and comprehensive consideration of representations made for revocation. While CDHQ did not pass the character test, the Tribunal was tasked with assessing if "another reason" existed to revoke the cancellation. After a holistic and integrated review of the primary and other considerations, including those outlined in Ministerial Direction No. 99, the Tribunal found that the circumstances favoured setting aside the delegate's decision.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the delegate's decision not to revoke the visa cancellation and substituted a decision revoking the original cancellation of CDHQ's visa.