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

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa. The applicant, a citizen of South Sudan, held a Class XB Subclass 202 Global Special Humanitarian (Permanent) Visa. The visa cancellation was based on the applicant failing to pass the character test due to an extensive criminal record, both as a juvenile and an adult. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine if there was "another reason" why the mandatory visa cancellation should be revoked, applying Ministerial Direction No. 79.

The Tribunal considered whether the applicant had established a reason, beyond passing the character test, that carried sufficient weight to warrant the revocation of the visa cancellation. This involved assessing various factors presented by the applicant, including his background, his claims of rehabilitation, his family ties in Australia, and his future aspirations. The Tribunal also had regard to the applicant's criminal history, his inconsistent evidence regarding his past, and his ongoing issues with child support debt and methadone use. The legal principles applied included the interpretation of "another reason" as established in *Viane v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection*, which requires a reason of sufficient weight to satisfy the decision-maker that the cancellation should be revoked.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to revoke the visa cancellation. It found that the applicant had not presented a reason of sufficient weight to justify revocation. The Tribunal noted inconsistencies in the applicant's evidence regarding his past, his limited engagement with rehabilitation programs, and the lack of concrete evidence supporting his claims of future employment and stable accommodation. The Tribunal concluded that the protective factors presented by the applicant did not outweigh the serious nature of his criminal offending and the risk he posed.