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

This matter concerned an application for review of a mandatory visa cancellation decision made by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. The applicant, Mr Dunasemant, had failed to pass the character test due to his criminal offending. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether there was another reason why the visa cancellation should be revoked, considering Ministerial Direction 90 and various factors including the protection of the Australian community, the nature and seriousness of the offending conduct, the risk of reoffending, family violence, the best interests of minor children, community expectations, non-refoulement obligations, the impact on victims, impediments to removal, links to the Australian community, and the degree and commitment to rehabilitation.

The Tribunal considered extensive evidence regarding the applicant's personal narrative, including reports from psychotherapists and psychologists detailing his history of childhood trauma, PTSD, alcohol abuse, and his current efforts towards rehabilitation and abstinence. The applicant's submissions and statutory declarations from family members were also taken into account, alongside evidence from previous Tribunal hearings. The Tribunal noted that the only relevant decision under review was that of the Delegate made on 14 July 2020.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal applied the principles outlined in Ministerial Direction 90, weighing the seriousness of the offending conduct against factors that might warrant revocation of the visa cancellation. The Tribunal acknowledged the applicant's challenging upbringing, including exposure to domestic violence and abuse, and his subsequent struggles with substance abuse and offending. Crucially, the Tribunal considered the applicant's demonstrated commitment to rehabilitation, his engagement with mental health professionals, and his strong ties to the Australian community, including his children. The Tribunal also had regard to the potential impact of removal on his family and his non-refoulement obligations.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found that there was another reason why the mandatory visa cancellation should be revoked. The decision of the Delegate was set aside and substituted with a decision to revoke the cancellation.