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

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) reviewed a decision of the delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (the Minister) not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa. The Applicant, a citizen of Russia, had his visa cancelled under section 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) following a conviction for reckless wounding, which resulted in a sentence of three years imprisonment with a non-parole period of one year and seven months. The Applicant sought revocation of this cancellation, but the Minister's delegate refused to revoke it.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether there was "another reason" why the discretion to revoke the visa cancellation should be exercised, having regard to the considerations outlined in Direction No. 79. This involved assessing the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct, and the expectations of the Australian community. The Tribunal was required to consider the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct to date, and the risk to the Australian community should he commit further offences.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal noted the Applicant's substantial and frequent criminal record, which included multiple convictions for violent offences, assault of police officers, and possession of a firearm. The Tribunal found that the Applicant's offending had incrementally increased in seriousness and demonstrated a disregard for the law and authority. The Tribunal also considered the risk of physical harm to the Australian community should the Applicant reoffend, noting the aggressive and violent nature of his past crimes, including against women and police officers. The Applicant's expressed remorse was mitigated by his inconsistent account of his most recent offence, which suggested an attempt to shift blame to the victim.

The Tribunal concluded that the nature, frequency, and seriousness of the Applicant's offending weighed heavily against revoking the visa cancellation. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Minister's delegate not to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation.