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

The applicant, a citizen of Türkiye, held a Class BF Transitional (Permanent) visa which was mandatorily cancelled due to a substantial criminal record and serving a sentence of full-time imprisonment. Following a reduction in his sentence, the applicant sought revocation of the visa cancellation. After making representations out of time and being renotified of the cancellation, the applicant was invited to make further representations, which he did. A delegate of the Minister decided not to revoke the mandatory cancellation. The applicant then applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of this decision. The Tribunal, presided over by D. J. Morris SM, affirmed the decision under review.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa, considering Ministerial Direction No. 99. This Direction outlines five primary considerations that decision-makers must address: the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct, family violence, ties with Australia, the best interests of minor children in Australia, and the expectations of the community. The Tribunal was also required to consider any other relevant considerations.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal focused on the primary consideration of protecting the Australian community. It noted that the applicant's past criminal conduct was conceded to be "very serious." Specifically, the Tribunal considered an incident where the applicant threatened a woman with a knife and stole her bag, and acts of family violence against his former domestic partner and their children. The Tribunal also took into account previous incidents of resisting arrest and assaulting police. While the applicant's counsel suggested women might be considered vulnerable members of the community, the Tribunal stated that vulnerability would depend on the context of the offence.