Dick and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration)

This matter concerned an application by Mr Dick for the revocation of a mandatory visa cancellation decision made by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. The cancellation was based on Mr Dick failing to pass the character test due to a substantial criminal record, which included numerous violent offences and offences against law enforcement officials. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) heard the application in Sydney.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether to exercise its discretion under s 501CA(4) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation. In determining this, the Tribunal was required to have regard to Ministerial Direction No. 65, which provides guidance on visa refusal and cancellation. This Direction mandates consideration of several primary factors, including the protection of the Australian community, the seriousness and nature of the conduct, the risk of reoffending, and the expectations of the Australian community.

The Tribunal reasoned that Mr Dick's extensive and long-standing criminal history, which commenced at a young age and included violent offences, weighed heavily against revoking the cancellation. Despite Mr Dick's claims of rehabilitation, the Tribunal was not satisfied that he would not reoffend, particularly given his history of drug use linked to his offending. The Tribunal considered that the Australian community would expect a person with such a criminal record not to be permitted to remain in Australia. While Mr Dick had familial ties to Australia, the Tribunal found these did not outweigh the primary considerations, especially as there were few impediments to his removal and he had resided in Australia since the age of 12, with his offending escalating from his teenage years.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel Mr Dick's visa, concluding that the protection of the Australian community and community expectations weighed strongly against revocation. The Tribunal found that the other considerations, such as familial ties, did not carry sufficient weight to outweigh the serious criminal conduct and the risk of reoffending.