FGBP and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration)

This matter concerned an application by FGBP (the Applicant) for the revocation of a mandatory visa cancellation. The Applicant's visa had been cancelled under section 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) because he did not pass the character test and was serving a full-time term of imprisonment. The Minister for Home Affairs (the Respondent) opposed the revocation. The decision was made by Theodore Tavoularis SM in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the discretion conferred by section 501CA of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation should be exercised in favour of the Applicant. This required the Tribunal to consider the considerations outlined in Direction No 65, including the protection of the Australian community from criminal conduct, the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's offending, and any risk of future offending. The Tribunal also had to consider the Applicant's non-refoulement obligations.

The Tribunal reasoned that the Applicant's criminal history demonstrated a pattern of escalating seriousness and a lack of insight into his offending, coupled with a disregard for the law. The Tribunal noted that crimes of violence, including domestic violence, are viewed very seriously under Direction No 65. The Applicant had a history of violent offending, including a conviction for unlawful wounding and previous sentences for assault occasioning bodily harm against his partner. Despite submissions that substance abuse issues contributed to his offending, the Tribunal found that this did not justify the revocation of his visa. The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant's conduct and the risk posed to the Australian community weighed against exercising the discretion to revoke the cancellation.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review and did not revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa.