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

This matter concerned an application to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa. The Applicant, who arrived in Australia as a child, had been convicted of serious offences, including choking his partner, and consequently did not pass the character test under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The Minister had cancelled his visa under s 501(3A) of the Act. The Applicant sought revocation of this decision under s 501CA(4) of the Act, arguing that there was "another reason" why the cancellation should be revoked, as he did not pass the character test.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether there was "another reason" to revoke the visa cancellation, as contemplated by s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act, given that the Applicant did not pass the character test. This required the court to consider the factors outlined in Ministerial Direction 99, including the protection of the Australian community, the seriousness of family violence committed by the Applicant, the Applicant's links to the Australian community, the best interests of his minor children in Australia, and the expectations of the Australian community. The court also had to consider the legal consequences of the decision, potential impediments to removal, and the Applicant's efforts at rehabilitation.

The court reasoned that while the Applicant did not pass the character test, and therefore could not rely on s 501CA(4)(b)(i), there were indeed other reasons to revoke the cancellation. The court found that the Applicant had demonstrated extensive rehabilitation and presented a low risk of reoffending. Crucially, the court weighed the Applicant's strong ties to Australia, including his two minor children who were Australian citizens and the fact that he had lived in Australia for most of his life, against the seriousness of his past offending, particularly the family violence. The court determined that the considerations favouring revocation, including the best interests of the children and the Applicant's rehabilitation, outweighed the considerations against it, such as the protection of the community from his past conduct.

Ultimately, the court set aside the decision under review and substituted it with a decision to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa.