DMSB and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by DMSB against a decision of the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse to grant him a visa. The dispute centred on whether DMSB met the character requirements for a visa under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The case was heard by K Parker M.

The court was required to determine whether DMSB passed the character test as defined by section 501(6) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). Specifically, the court considered whether subsections (c) and (d)(i) of section 501(6) applied to DMSB, which relate to whether a person is of good character based on their past and present criminal and general conduct. The court also had to consider the weight to be given to various factors, including the nature and severity of criminal conduct, the frequency of offending, and conduct since the most recent offence, as well as the broader context of Australia's international non-refoulement obligations.

The court's reasoning involved an examination of the evidence, including expert psychiatric evidence from Dr. Turnbull, which indicated DMSB suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder exacerbated by the prospect of deportation. The court noted that while DMSB had a history of drug-related offending over a seven-year period, culminating in a conviction in January 2018, his offences were not violent or sexual in nature. The court applied principles from case law, such as *Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs v Godley*, which emphasise the need to assess the moral culpability of conduct and consider enduring moral qualities, while also giving due weight to recent good conduct and evidence of reform. The court acknowledged that Australia owed protection obligations to DMSB, given the unstable situation in Sudan, and that this was a significant consideration.

The court ultimately set aside the Minister's decision and remitted the matter for reconsideration. This was based on the finding that Australia owed protection obligations to DMSB, and that the situation in Sudan remained extremely unstable, meaning the previous RRT decision remained valid. The court considered that DMSB would be in grave danger if returned to Sudan.