Dharma and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration)

This matter concerned an application by Mr Dharma, a citizen of Indonesia, for the revocation of his mandatory visa cancellation. Mr Dharma had resided in Australia since 1991, holding a transitional permanent visa. His visa was cancelled under section 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) due to his extensive criminal record, which commenced in 1994 and continued until 2017. Mr Dharma subsequently made representations to the Minister for revocation, which were refused by a delegate. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) affirmed the delegate's decision, and Mr Dharma sought judicial review in the Federal Court, which set aside the Tribunal's decision, leading to the present proceedings before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether there was "another reason" why the mandatory visa cancellation should be revoked, applying the principles in Ministerial Direction No. 79. This involved an evaluative process considering various factors, including the protection of the Australian community, the best interests of minor children in Australia, the strength and nature of ties to Australia, and the extent of impediments if removed to Indonesia. The Tribunal considered Mr Dharma's criminal history, his drug addiction, his personal circumstances, and the evidence of his family members.

The Tribunal found that Mr Dharma's persistent criminal offending over more than 20 years was objectively serious and demonstrated a disregard for Australian law. Despite previous warnings from immigration authorities and rehabilitative opportunities, his drug use and offending had continued. The Tribunal considered his claims of rehabilitation unpersuasive, particularly in light of his continued drug use while in immigration detention. While acknowledging the best interests of his children and the impediments to re-establishing himself in Indonesia, the Tribunal concluded that these factors were outweighed by the primary considerations of protecting the Australian community and the expectations of the Australian public. The Tribunal found that the risk of harm from Mr Dharma repeating his offending constituted an unacceptable risk to the Australian community.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to revoke the cancellation of Mr Dharma's visa.