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

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs to affirm the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's Class BF Transitional (Permanent) Visa. The Applicant did not pass the character test, and the core dispute revolved around whether there was "another reason" to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision, considering Ministerial Direction No. 79. The case was heard by Rebecca Bellamy M.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Applicant's circumstances constituted "another reason" to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa, and how the principles outlined in Ministerial Direction No. 79, particularly concerning the protection of the Australian community and the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct, should be applied. The court was required to assess the Applicant's extensive history of offending, including numerous traffic infringements, drug possession, and unlawful possession of a weapon, against the expectation that non-citizens who commit serious crimes should generally forfeit their privilege to remain in Australia.

The court reasoned that the Applicant's visa had been mandatorily cancelled in 2017, subsequently revoked in 2018 with a clear warning that further offending could lead to re-cancellation, and that the Applicant had re-offended less than two months after the revocation. The court considered the Applicant's criminal history, including drug use and possession, and the unlawful possession of a weapon, noting the frequency and cumulative effect of his offending. It applied the principles from Ministerial Direction No. 79, which prioritises the protection of the Australian community and views serious crimes, particularly those involving violence or against vulnerable persons, with low tolerance. The court found that the Applicant's conduct, especially his re-offending after a warning, weighed heavily against finding "another reason" to revoke the cancellation.

The court affirmed the decision to not revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa.