Denizgezen and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review by Ali Riza Denizgezen, a citizen of Cyprus and Turkey, of a decision by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to refuse his partner visa. The refusal was based on Mr Denizgezen failing to pass the character test due to his criminal record, specifically convictions for domestic violence and breaches of apprehended violence orders. The delegate exercised the discretion under s 501(1) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) to refuse the visa.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the delegate’s decision to refuse the visa under s 501(1) of the Act was correct. This involved assessing whether Mr Denizgezen passed the character test, particularly in light of the grounds specified in s 501(6)(d) of the Act, which relate to the risk of future criminal conduct or danger to the Australian community. The Tribunal also had to consider the principles outlined in Direction no. 65, which provides guidance on exercising discretion under s 501, including the primary considerations of protecting the Australian community, the best interests of minor children, and the expectations of the Australian community.

The Tribunal reasoned that Mr Denizgezen’s offences, which involved domestic violence against his partners and breaches of apprehended violence orders, were serious. It noted that such crimes, particularly when directed at intimate partners, are viewed very seriously. The Tribunal also considered the risk to the Australian community should Mr Denizgezen engage in further serious conduct. While acknowledging Mr Denizgezen’s remorse and his partial completion of a temper management course, the Tribunal found that the nature of his past offending indicated a significant risk of harm if repeated. Applying the principles in Direction no. 65, the Tribunal concluded that the protection of the Australian community from such conduct was paramount, and that the risk of future harm was unacceptable.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, meaning the refusal of the partner visa was upheld.