De Ruyter and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration)

This matter concerned an application by Mr De Ruyter, a New Zealand citizen who had resided in Australia since childhood, for review of the Minister's decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa. Mr De Ruyter's visa was cancelled under section 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) following his conviction for numerous offences, for which he was sentenced to five years imprisonment. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether to exercise the discretion under section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act to revoke the visa cancellation.

The Tribunal was tasked with assessing the nature and seriousness of Mr De Ruyter's criminal offending, considering factors outlined in Part C of the relevant Direction. This included evaluating the violent and dangerous nature of his crimes, the cumulative effect of his repeated offending, and whether he had re-offended after being warned about the consequences for his migration status. The Tribunal also had to consider any personal circumstances and the best interests of any children affected by the decision, while balancing these against the risk of harm to the Australian community.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal placed significant weight on the sentencing remarks from the District Court, which detailed Mr De Ruyter's extensive criminal conduct over a 13-month period, including violent offences committed while armed and in company, and participation in a riot while in custody. The Tribunal noted a pattern of offending that escalated in seriousness, with Mr De Ruyter committing further offences while on bail and in custody, demonstrating a disregard for Australian laws. While acknowledging Mr De Ruyter's claims of rehabilitation efforts and positive relationships with his son and other family members, the Tribunal found these efforts to be recent and untested in the community. Crucially, there was no corroborating expert evidence to confirm that his issues with alcohol and drugs had been adequately addressed, leading the Tribunal to conclude there was an unacceptable risk of recidivism.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that Mr De Ruyter did not pass the character test. Despite acknowledging that revoking the visa cancellation might slightly favour the development of his relationships with his son and other children, the Tribunal determined that the serious and violent nature of his offending, coupled with the ongoing risk of harm to the Australian community, outweighed these considerations. Consequently, the mandatory cancellation of Mr De Ruyter's visa was not revoked.