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

The applicant, CNJP, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs concerning the non-revocation of a mandatory cancellation of his Class XB Subclass 204 Woman at Risk Visa. The cancellation was based on the applicant failing to pass the character test. The core dispute revolved around whether there was "another reason" to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision, considering Ministerial Direction No. 90.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant's circumstances presented "another reason" to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa, despite his failure to meet the character test. This involved assessing the applicant's past conduct, his remorse, his rehabilitation efforts, and the potential risk he posed to the Australian community, all within the framework provided by Ministerial Direction No. 90.

The court applied the principles outlined in Ministerial Direction No. 90, which emphasises Australia's sovereign right to determine who remains in the country and the low tolerance for criminal or serious conduct by non-citizens. The court considered the primary considerations of protecting the Australian community, the nature of family violence, the best interests of minor children, and community expectations, as well as other considerations such as impediments to removal and links to the Australian community. The applicant provided evidence of his remorse, his acknowledgment of past wrongdoing, and his participation in rehabilitation programs, including courses on impulsivity and substance abuse. He stated he had reached a turning point and no longer wished to use illicit drugs, which he acknowledged had contributed to his offending. The court found that the applicant's conduct, including crimes of violence against women and property offences, was "very serious." However, it also considered the applicant's evidence of rehabilitation and his stated commitment to change.

The court set aside the decision under review and substituted it with a new decision. The court found that there was another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa.