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

This matter concerned an application for review of the Minister's decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa. The Applicant failed to pass the character test due to his criminal conduct. The Applicant, born in New Zealand, had a history of offending in that country, including a conviction for unlawful interference with a motor vehicle and breaches of a community work order. Upon relocating to Australia, he initially ceased using cannabis and maintained employment, but experienced a downturn due to job loss during the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to increased alcohol consumption and occasional cannabis use. He was subsequently convicted of two shoplifting offences in Australia. The decision was made by Rebecca Bellamy M.

The central legal issue before the court was whether there was "another reason" to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa, as contemplated by the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This required the court to consider the Applicant's circumstances in light of Ministerial Direction No. 90, which sets out the framework for assessing such matters. Specifically, the court had to weigh the primary considerations, including the protection of the Australian community, against other considerations, to determine if the balance favoured revocation.

The court's reasoning focused on the assessment of Primary Consideration 1: Protection of the Australian Community. It noted that the Applicant had committed a "very serious, unprovoked, violent crime" which was reflected in the substantial sentence imposed by the court. While the Applicant's other offending was less serious, it indicated a disregard for the law. The court found that there was an unacceptable risk of repeated violent offending of the kind previously engaged in, and that this risk was not outweighed by other considerations, such as Primary Consideration 3 (the best interests of minor children in Australia) or other considerations (b) and (d).

Consequently, the court concluded that there was no other reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa. The decision under review was therefore affirmed.