Denison and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration)

This matter concerned an application by the applicant, Mr. Denison, to revoke the cancellation of his visa. The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection had cancelled Mr. Denison's visa under section 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) due to his substantial criminal record, having been sentenced to 18 months imprisonment for causing grievous bodily harm and taking part in an affray. The applicant sought to have this cancellation decision revoked. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether there was "another reason" why the original decision to cancel the visa should be revoked, as provided for in section 501CA(4) of the Act.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's criminal history, which included convictions for disturbing the peace by fighting and common assault prior to the more serious offences. Crucially, the Tribunal also considered evidence of the applicant's rehabilitation, including his efforts to manage anger, his stable relationship, and his employment. The legal framework involved the mandatory cancellation provisions of section 501(3A) and the criteria for revocation under section 501CA(4), guided by Direction No. 65, which outlines factors to be considered in such cases, including the protection of the Australian community and the individual circumstances of the applicant.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal acknowledged the seriousness of the applicant's offending, particularly the violent nature of the affray. However, it found that the applicant's last offence, while serious, did not reach the threshold of the type of offence that would automatically preclude revocation under the principles of Direction No. 65. The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant had made genuine efforts towards rehabilitation and that his improved behaviour, coupled with the fact that he would be in a constrained environment if his visa were returned, meant that revocation would not pose an unacceptable risk to the Australian community.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that there was another reason why the original decision to cancel the applicant's visa should be revoked. The decision under review, which was the delegate's refusal to revoke the cancellation, was set aside, and the original decision to cancel the applicant's visa was revoked.