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

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of CRNL and the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. The dispute concerned the non-revocation of a mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa, following the Applicant failing to pass the character test. The Applicant sought to have the discretion to refuse to grant the visa exercised in his favour, with consideration given to Ministerial Direction No. 90, which includes provisions for domestic violence.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the discretion to refuse to grant the visa should be exercised, taking into account the Applicant's extensive criminal history, which included offences of assault, threats to kill, property damage, deprivation of liberty, and breaches of family violence restraining orders, predominantly against his female partners. The Tribunal also had to consider the weight to be given to the "other considerations" under Ministerial Direction No. 90, particularly in light of the Applicant's assertions regarding his conduct and the impact of domestic violence.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal applied Ministerial Direction No. 90, which mandates that decision-makers keep in mind the Government's commitment to protecting the Australian community from harm. The Tribunal noted that violent crimes, crimes against women or children, and acts of family violence are viewed very seriously. The Applicant's criminal history, particularly the repeated instances of violence and threats against his partners, was found to be significant. The Tribunal acknowledged the Applicant's submissions regarding specific incidents but ultimately found that the nature and seriousness of his conduct, especially the pattern of family violence, weighed heavily against him. The Tribunal also considered the sentencing remarks from previous court proceedings, which indicated the fear experienced by victims and the seriousness of the offences.

Ultimately, the Tribunal decided not to exercise the discretion to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant's visa. The decision under review, which affirmed the cancellation, was therefore affirmed.