Dobrosavljevic and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)

This matter concerned an application by Mr Dobrosavljevic for review of a decision by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa. The visa had been cancelled under section 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) due to the applicant having a substantial criminal record and serving a custodial sentence. The applicant sought revocation of this cancellation, but the delegate refused, leading to the current review before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant passed the character test as defined by section 501(6) of the *Migration Act*, and if not, whether there was another reason why the cancellation decision should be revoked. This reconsideration occurred after the Federal Court remitted the matter due to a previous Tribunal error in its reasoning regarding the applicant's risk of relapsing into drug use or engaging in criminal offences if returned to Serbia.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's extensive criminal history, which commenced in 1977 and included a range of offences such as property, drug, traffic, assault, and weapons offences, culminating in a conviction for home burglary in 2019 for which he received a significant custodial sentence. In its reasoning, the Tribunal applied Direction No 99, which outlines considerations for visa refusal and cancellation, including the protection of the Australian community, the nature and seriousness of offending, the risk of future offending, the strength and duration of ties to Australia, the best interests of children, community expectations, and impediments to removal. The Tribunal found that the risk of the applicant relapsing into drug use or engaging in criminal offences if returned to Serbia was an impediment that weighed in favour of revoking the visa cancellation.

Having regard to all the considerations under Direction No 99, the Tribunal concluded that there was another reason why the cancellation decision should be revoked. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the delegate's decision not to revoke the visa cancellation and substituted it with a decision to revoke the cancellation of the applicant's visa under section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the *Migration Act*.