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

This matter concerned an application by DJYG for judicial review of a decision to affirm 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 due to various traffic and drug-related offending, as well as aggravated break and enter. The central dispute was whether there was "another reason" to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision, considering Ministerial Direction No. 90. The applicant was presently residing with his family in New Zealand.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant had established "another reason" to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa. This involved assessing the applicant's criminal conduct against the framework provided by Ministerial Direction No. 90, specifically considering the primary and other considerations outlined therein, and evaluating the evidence of rehabilitation and the risk of future offending.

The court applied the principles set out in Ministerial Direction No. 90, which emphasises Australia's sovereign right to determine who remains in the country and a low tolerance for criminal conduct by non-citizens. The court found that the applicant's offending was of a "very serious nature," as contemplated by paragraph 8.1.1(1)(g) of the Direction. In assessing the risk to the Australian community, the court considered the nature of the harm that could result from further offending, the likelihood of reoffending, and evidence of rehabilitation. While the applicant presented evidence of therapy and participation in programs, the court noted that the counsellor was not a qualified clinician to assess the applicant's recidivist profile. The court concluded that the totality of the applicant's unlawful conduct in Australia was readily characterised as "very serious," and the risk of future harm, if repeated, was a significant concern.

The court affirmed the decision to not revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa.