Dickinson (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an applicant whose Subclass 444 (Special Category) visa was cancelled by the Minister. The dispute centred on whether the cancellation was justified under section 116 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), which allows for visa cancellation if the Minister is satisfied that the visa holder's presence in Australia poses a risk to the health, safety, or good order of the Australian community or individuals. The applicant's criminal history, including violence against former partners and multiple breaches of intervention orders, was the primary basis for the cancellation decision.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the ground for cancellation under section 116(1)(e) of the Act was established, and if so, whether the applicant's Subclass 444 visa should be cancelled. This involved interpreting the scope of section 116(1)(e), specifically whether a "may be a risk" threshold required a direct, solid, or certain foundation for cancellation, or if a possibility of past events indicating risk was sufficient. The Tribunal also had to consider whether to exercise its discretion to cancel the visa, taking into account all relevant circumstances, including the applicant's personal circumstances and submissions.

The Tribunal applied the principles established in *Gong v Minister for Immigration & Anor* [2016] FCCA 561 and *Howard v Minister for Immigration* [2017] FCCA 2916, which held that section 116(1)(e) lowers the threshold for cancellation, allowing it to arise on the possibility that past events indicate a risk. The Tribunal found that the applicant's criminal history, involving violence and breaches of intervention orders, demonstrated a likelihood of re-offending and posed a risk to the Australian community. While acknowledging the applicant's long-term employment and positive references, the Tribunal found no evidence that his work was critical to his employer's operations or that he was unable to work in New Zealand.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 444 (Special Category) visa, concluding that the ground for cancellation under section 116(1)(e)(i) was satisfied and that the visa should be cancelled.