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

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate of the Minister's decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's Class BB (Subclass 155) Five Year Resident Return Visa. The applicant, a citizen of New Zealand, had resided in Australia since 1999 and possessed an extensive criminal history dating back to 2000, encompassing drug offences, driving offences, resisting arrest, assaulting police, shoplifting, and failures to comply with court orders and bail. The applicant's offending escalated over time, including violent offences and serious fraud-related matters, culminating in a 12-month community-based order for obtaining financial advantage and aggregate prison terms for perverting the course of justice and dishonestly obtaining property by deception. Her visa was mandatorily cancelled under s 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) in January 2021, and a subsequent application for revocation was refused by a delegate in July 2022.

The sole legal issue before the Tribunal was whether there was 'another reason' to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation under s 501CA(4) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), given that the applicant did not pass the character test. In determining this, the Tribunal was required to consider Direction No. 90, which outlines several considerations including the protection of the Australian community, the best interests of minor children, the expectations of the Australian community, and the applicant's links to the Australian community.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's extensive and increasingly serious criminal history, particularly offences involving violence against police and attempts to pervert the course of justice, demonstrated a profound lack of respect for the criminal justice system and the Australian community. The applicant was assessed as a medium risk of reoffending. While the best interests of the applicant's children were considered, the Tribunal found that this factor, when weighed against the serious nature of the applicant's conduct and the risk of harm to the community, did not provide sufficient grounds to outweigh the considerations against revocation. The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to revoke the visa cancellation.