Corrigan and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an applicant, a national of New Zealand, whose Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa was mandatorily cancelled due to failing the character test. The applicant, who had resided in Australia since he was 16 years old and had an extensive criminal history, sought revocation of this cancellation. The Minister for Home Affairs was the respondent.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa, pursuant to section 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This required the Tribunal to consider the principles outlined in Ministerial Direction No. 65, which mandates decision-makers to take into account specified primary and other considerations when determining whether to revoke a visa cancellation. The Tribunal was tasked with weighing factors such as the protection of the Australian community, the applicant's ties to Australia, the impact on his minor children, and the expectations of the Australian community.

The Tribunal's reasoning centred on the application of Ministerial Direction No. 65. It acknowledged the applicant's submissions regarding his long-term residence in Australia, his employment history, and his role as a father to two Australian citizen children. However, the Tribunal gave significant weight to the primary consideration of protecting the Australian community from criminal conduct. Despite the applicant's claims of rehabilitation, including overcoming alcohol addiction and completing various courses, the Tribunal found that his substantial criminal record, which included serious offences, indicated an unacceptable risk of future harm. The Tribunal noted that the seriousness of the potential harm, coupled with the likelihood of re-offending, weighed heavily against revocation. The Tribunal also considered the impact on the applicant's children but concluded that this did not outweigh the imperative to protect the community.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to revoke the cancellation of the applicant's visa. The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the character test as defined in section 501 of the Act, and after considering all the evidence and the relevant considerations under Ministerial Direction No. 65, it determined that the visa cancellation should stand.