FBLQ 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 BC Subclass 100 Partner (Migrant) Visa. The Applicant, a citizen of the Philippines, had failed to pass the character test due to violent sexual offending. The Applicant sought review of the non-revocation decision before the Tribunal, which was asked to consider Ministerial Direction No. 99.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether there was "another reason" why the visa cancellation decision should be revoked, as contemplated by section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This required the Tribunal to determine if the Applicant's representations, considered as a whole, warranted the revocation of the cancellation decision, notwithstanding the failure to pass the character test. The Tribunal also considered the principles of open justice and the requirements for imposing confidentiality orders.

The Tribunal applied the principles established in *Bettencourt* and *Viane*, which outline the Minister's (and by extension, the Tribunal's) obligation to form a state of satisfaction regarding whether a person passes the character test or if there is "another reason" to revoke a cancellation decision. This satisfaction must be formed by reference to the representations made, with a genuine and real consideration of each substantial or significant claim. The Tribunal noted that a mere belief that a confidentiality order is necessary is insufficient, and such orders are only justified in circumstances where they are necessary in the interests of justice or where specific statutory grounds are met.

The Tribunal affirmed the non-revocation decision. The Applicant failed the character test due to convictions for violent sexual offending. The Tribunal found that the Applicant's representations did not establish "another reason" to revoke the cancellation decision, and therefore the discretion to revoke was not enlivened. The Tribunal also declined to apply a confidentiality order, finding no basis for it under section 501K of the Act and noting the general principle of open justice.