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

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate's decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa. The Applicant had failed to pass the character test due to a substantial criminal record. The core dispute before the Tribunal was whether there was "another reason" to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision, as required by section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).

The legal issues before the Tribunal were twofold: first, whether the Applicant passed the character test, and second, if he did not, whether there was another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa. The Tribunal was required to consider the provisions of Ministerial Direction No. 99, which outlines the framework for assessing whether to revoke a mandatory visa cancellation.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant did not pass the character test due to his criminal record. The Tribunal then considered whether there was another reason to revoke the cancellation, applying Ministerial Direction No. 99. This involved assessing the primary consideration of protecting the Australian community, including the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct and the risk of re-offending. The Tribunal found that the Applicant's offending predominantly involved illicit substance abuse and repeated family violence, and that his rehabilitation was unknown, with a recidivist risk assessed as unchanged. Factors against revocation were found to outweigh those in favour.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found that there was no other reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa. Accordingly, the delegate's decision to not revoke the cancellation was affirmed.