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

This matter concerned an application by CRBC (the applicant) to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) seeking the revocation of a mandatory visa cancellation decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. The applicant's visa had been cancelled under section 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) because he failed to pass the character test. The central dispute before the Tribunal was whether there was "another reason" why the visa cancellation should be revoked, pursuant to section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act. The decision was made by Deputy President John Pascoe AC CVO.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether, in light of the applicant's circumstances and the relevant Ministerial Direction (No. 79), the mandatory cancellation of his visa should be revoked. This involved a comprehensive assessment of various factors, including the nature and seriousness of the applicant's offending conduct, the risk of reoffending, the protection of the Australian community, the best interests of any minor children, community expectations, the strength and duration of the applicant's ties to Australia, Australia's international non-refoulement obligations, and any impediments to removal.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on weighing the competing considerations outlined in Ministerial Direction No. 79. While acknowledging the seriousness of the applicant's offending, particularly his last offence involving offensive weapons and his demonstrated lack of respect for law enforcement, the Tribunal gave significant weight to other factors. These included Australia's non-refoulement obligations and the applicant's strong ties to Australia, having arrived as a refugee at a young age and considering himself Australian. The Tribunal accepted the applicant's commitment to change and his realisation of the potential consequences of his actions.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the balance of factors weighed in favour of revoking the delegate's decision. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the decision not to revoke the visa cancellation and, in substitution, revoked the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's Offshore Humanitarian (Subclass 200) visa.