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

This matter concerned an application for judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) which affirmed the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's (DGPZ) visa. DGPZ, a citizen of Turkey who had resided in Australia since childhood, had an extensive criminal record spanning over 35 years and involving more than 150 offences, including serious violence against his former partner and mother. His visa was mandatorily cancelled in 2017 while he was serving a prison sentence. Following his release and subsequent immigration detention, the AAT affirmed the cancellation decision, leading to the present judicial review proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the AAT erred in law by affirming the decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of DGPZ's visa. This involved considering whether the AAT had properly weighed the various factors relevant to the character test under section 501 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), including the seriousness of DGPZ's criminal conduct, his ties to Australia, and the impediments he might face if removed to Turkey. The court also had to consider the weight to be given to expert evidence regarding DGPZ's mental health and his risk of reoffending.

The court's reasoning focused on the AAT's assessment of the evidence and the application of the relevant legal principles. It considered the extensive criminal history of DGPZ, noting that his offending continued even after receiving warnings from immigration authorities. The court also examined the expert evidence, particularly that of a consultant psychiatrist, which indicated that while DGPZ suffered from Schizoaffective Disorder and Substance Abuse Disorder, his offending was more closely linked to substance abuse. The court noted that DGPZ's period of abstinence from illicit drugs, while positive, had occurred primarily in custodial settings and followed a history of unfulfilled undertakings. The AAT had found that the primary considerations, namely the serious and persistent nature of DGPZ's criminal offending and the unacceptably high risk of relapse into drug abuse and further offences, weighed substantially against revocation. These considerations were found to outweigh the factors in favour of revocation, such as DGPZ's strong ties to Australia and the significant impediments to his removal to Turkey.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that there was no other reason of sufficient weight or significance to revoke the visa cancellation. The court concluded that the AAT had properly considered all relevant factors and had not made any error of law in its decision.