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

This matter concerned an application by a 25-year-old New Zealand citizen, who had resided in Australia since the age of two, to review a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa. The visa cancellation was based on the applicant's failure to pass the character test due to a substantial criminal record, which included prolonged offending from his juvenile years into adulthood. The applicant failed to appear at a directions hearing and the substantive hearing, despite arrangements being made for him to participate via video link.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether there was "another reason" to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation, as contemplated by the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). In determining this, the Tribunal was required to apply Ministerial Direction No. 90, which outlines considerations for protecting the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens. This involved assessing the nature and seriousness of the applicant's past conduct and the risk of future offending.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's extensive criminal history, which commenced at age 15 and included violent offences, property crime, and drug possession, as well as poor conduct in youth justice facilities. Despite the applicant's claims about his family background, the Tribunal noted inconsistencies and evidence suggesting ongoing contact with family members. Crucially, the applicant's persistent refusal to participate in the review process, including failing to provide requested documentation and refusing to attend hearings, meant that the Tribunal could not adequately assess any potential mitigating factors or reasons for revocation. The Tribunal applied the principles in Ministerial Direction No. 90, noting the seriousness of the applicant's offending and the lack of any compelling reason to depart from the mandatory cancellation.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa.