DTR21 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs

The applicant, DTR21, appealed against the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) affirming the decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa under section 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The applicant had been convicted of raping his partner’s 18-year-old daughter and was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. The Tribunal considered whether its decision was affected by jurisdictional error and whether it had regard to irrelevant considerations.

The applicant contended that the Tribunal erred in its consideration of the primary consideration of the protection of the Australian community. He argued that the Tribunal had incorrectly accepted the evidence of the risk of reoffending as it was based on his denial of the offence. The applicant submitted that the Tribunal should not have accepted this evidence as it was based on his denial of the offence. The Tribunal found that there was no link between denial of offending and sexual violence recidivism and accepted the evidence as to the risk of reoffending. The court considered whether the Tribunal’s finding on the risk of reoffending was a jurisdictional error.

The court held that the Tribunal was not affected by jurisdictional error and had not regarded an irrelevant consideration. The court found that the Tribunal had correctly identified the relevant considerations and had given proper weight to each of them. The court held that the Tribunal’s finding on the risk of reoffending was not a jurisdictional error as it was based on the evidence before it and the Tribunal was entitled to accept this evidence. The court held that the Tribunal had properly considered the primary consideration of the protection of the Australian community and had given proper weight to this consideration.

The court dismissed the application and ordered that the applicant pay the costs of the first respondent. The court held that the Tribunal’s decision was not affected by jurisdictional error and that the Tribunal had not regarded an irrelevant consideration. The court found that the Tribunal had properly considered the relevant considerations and had given proper weight to each of them. The court held that the Tribunal’s finding on the risk of reoffending was not a jurisdictional error as it was based on the evidence before it and the Tribunal was entitled to accept this evidence. The court dismissed the application and ordered that the applicant pay the costs of the first respondent.