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

This matter concerned an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) by FFXL (the Applicant) against a decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of their Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa. The cancellation was triggered by the Applicant failing to pass the character test due to a sentence of imprisonment exceeding twelve months. The Applicant sought revocation of this cancellation, arguing there was another reason to do so.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether there was "another reason" to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa, as contemplated by section 501CA(4) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This required the Tribunal to consider and apply Ministerial Direction No 90, which sets out the framework for assessing such applications, particularly focusing on the strength, nature, and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia and any impact on Australian business interests.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal considered sub-paragraph 9.4.1(1) of Ministerial Direction No 90, which mandates consideration of the impact of a deportation decision on immediate family members in Australia who are Australian citizens, permanent residents, or have a right to remain indefinitely. The Tribunal found that the Applicant had seven siblings residing in Australia, some of whom had taken steps towards Australian citizenship. It accepted evidence regarding the Applicant's past support for siblings with medical conditions and acknowledged the emotional hardship her deportation would cause her immediate family, including nieces and nephews, particularly in light of past domestic violence experienced by the family. The Tribunal also noted the Applicant had resided in Australia for the predominant part of her life. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the impact on the Applicant's immediate family weighed strongly in favour of her remaining in Australia.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa. The Tribunal found that it could not exercise the discretion under section 501CA(4) of the *Migration Act* to revoke the cancellation.