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

This matter concerned an application for review by the applicant, CWGF, of a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs not to revoke the cancellation of his visa on character grounds. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal had previously affirmed the Minister's decision, but this decision was subsequently set aside on appeal and remitted for a fresh determination. The core dispute revolved around whether there was "another reason" why the visa cancellation should be revoked under s 501CA(4) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).

The Tribunal was required to consider whether the applicant satisfied the character test and, if not, whether there were other compelling reasons to revoke the visa cancellation. This involved assessing mandatory considerations under Direction No. 90, including family violence, the best interests of minor children, and the expectations of the Australian community, as well as other relevant matters arising from the applicant's circumstances.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the expectations of the Australian community generally favoured refusal to revoke the cancellation, other significant factors weighed in favour of revocation. These included the applicant's non-refoulement obligations, which prevented his return to Iran unless he requested it, and the prospect of indefinite immigration detention. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's strong ties to the Australian community, including his children and extended family, all of whom would be adversely affected by his continued detention. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted the applicant's personal history, including past trauma, his attempts at rehabilitation from drug and alcohol dependence, and his desire to reunite with his children. The Tribunal found that allowing the applicant to enter a long-term rehabilitation facility, with the support of his family, was in his best interests and those of his children, and that leaving him in detention would not recognise the human consequences of his situation.

Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the previous decision and substituted its own decision, revoking the cancellation of the applicant's visa.