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

This matter concerned an appeal by the Applicant against the non-revocation of a mandatory cancellation of his Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa. The Applicant did not pass the character test, and the Minister had decided not to revoke the mandatory cancellation. The Applicant sought to persuade the court that there was "another reason" to revoke the cancellation.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether there was another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa, considering Ministerial Direction No. 90. This involved assessing the Applicant's character, his history of offending, including breaches of apprehended violence orders and other criminal matters, and any mitigating factors or evidence of rehabilitation.

The court considered the Applicant's submissions regarding his personal circumstances, including his difficult upbringing, his efforts at rehabilitation, his work history, and his relationship with his son. However, the court also had regard to the Applicant's extensive criminal history, which commenced in 2006 and included multiple drink-driving offences, driving whilst disqualified, break, enter, and steal, larceny, and numerous breaches of apprehended violence orders and community correction orders. Despite the Applicant's father and step-mother offering accommodation and support, the Tribunal found that the Applicant's troubled history, regular relapses into drug and alcohol abuse, and history of non-engagement with corrective services did not lead it to conclude that this would be a safe long-term proposition to prevent future drug and alcohol abuse.

Consequently, the Tribunal determined that it could not exercise the discretion to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant's visa. The decision under review was affirmed.