De Barros (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Ernani Flavio De Barros against the cancellation of his Bridging A visa. The Minister's delegate had cancelled Mr De Barros' visa under section 116(1)(g) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and regulation 2.43(1)(oa) of the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth), due to his criminal convictions and subsequent imprisonment. Mr De Barros argued that the cancellation should be set aside, presenting submissions regarding his remorse, rehabilitation efforts, his status as a genuine student, the best interests of his daughter, and his lack of danger to the community.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Minister's delegate had erred in exercising the discretion to cancel Mr De Barros' visa. This required the court to consider the submissions made by Mr De Barros concerning his rehabilitation, his intention to complete his studies in Australia, and the potential impact of cancellation on his daughter. The court also had to assess whether Mr De Barros posed a continuing threat to the community, particularly his former wife, and whether his offending was out of character.

The court considered the evidence presented by Mr De Barros, including a psychological assessment indicating a low risk of reoffending, his enrolment in a rehabilitation program, and character references from members of the Brazilian community. It was noted that Mr De Barros had expressed remorse and had ceased consuming alcohol, which was identified as a contributing factor to his offending. The court also examined Mr De Barros' study record, acknowledging that while there had been delays, these were attributed to factors such as the need for additional language training and his period of incarceration. The court acknowledged the seriousness of domestic violence offences but weighed this against the mitigating factors presented, including Mr De Barros' compliance with an apprehended violence order and his efforts to maintain distance from his former wife.

The court affirmed the decision to cancel Mr De Barros' visa. It found that while Mr De Barros had made some efforts towards rehabilitation and presented mitigating circumstances, these did not outweigh the seriousness of his criminal convictions and the prescribed grounds for cancellation under the *Migration Act* and *Regulations*. The court concluded that the delegate had properly considered the relevant factors and had not erred in the exercise of discretion.