CZCV and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate of the Minister's decision to refuse to grant the Applicant a Protection Visa. The Applicant's Bridging Visa had been mandatorily cancelled due to failing the character test, based on having a substantial criminal record and being convicted of a sexually based offence involving a child. The Tribunal had previously remitted a Protection Visa refusal decision for reconsideration, finding the Applicant met complimentary protection criteria and that his wife and daughter satisfied other criteria. However, the Tribunal did not accept the Applicant faced a real risk of serious harm in Zimbabwe due to political opinion, but did find a risk of significant harm from a victim's family seeking revenge for the offences. A delegate of the Minister subsequently refused to revoke the Bridging Visa cancellation and refused the Protection Visa. The Applicant sought review of the Protection Visa refusal decision only.

The Tribunal was required to determine two primary issues: first, whether the Applicant passed the character test as defined by section 501(6) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth); and second, if the Applicant did not pass the character test, whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion under section 501(1) of the Act to set aside the refusal decision and grant the Protection Visa, having regard to the primary and other considerations outlined in Ministerial Direction No. 65.

The Tribunal considered the evidence presented, including the Applicant's own evidence, that of his family members, and a psychological assessment report from Dr Leonie Coxon. The Tribunal also examined briefing letters and documentation provided to the expert witnesses. The Applicant's legal representative argued that Australia's non-refoulement obligations would be breached if the Applicant were returned to Zimbabwe, and that the best interests of the Applicant's nephew should be considered. The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the interpretation and application of Direction No. 65, weighing the primary and other considerations, including the protection of the Australian community and the best interests of minor children, against the Applicant's circumstances and the risk of harm upon return.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse to grant the Applicant a Protection Visa.