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

This matter concerned an application for review of a mandatory visa cancellation decision made under section 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The applicant, who had arrived in Australia in 2012, did not pass the character test due to having received an aggregate criminal sentence of 12 months imprisonment or more. The central issue before the court was whether there was "another reason" to revoke the cancellation decision, as permitted by section 501(CA)(4) of the Act, considering the principles outlined in Direction No. 99.

The court was required to determine the weight to be given to various considerations under Direction No. 99, including the protection of the Australian community, the applicant's links to the Australian community, the expectations of the Australian community, the legal consequences of the decision, and impediments to removal. Specifically, the court had to assess the seriousness of the applicant's criminal conduct, which included drug offences, theft, and assaults, and the risk of reoffending given his ongoing drug addiction and lack of remorse. The court also had to consider the significant legal consequence of indefinite detention in Australia due to non-refoulement obligations, and the potential adverse mental health impacts of such detention.

In its reasoning, the court acknowledged the seriousness of the applicant's offending, noting a pattern of criminal behaviour linked to drug use and a disregard for the criminal justice system and repeated warnings regarding his visa. Despite the significant weight given to the legal consequences of indefinite detention, which weighed in favour of revocation, the court found that, on balance, the evidence firmly supported affirming the delegate's decision. This conclusion was primarily driven by the substantial risk to the Australian community posed by the applicant's continued drug use and offending, coupled with his apparent lack of insight, remorse, and commitment to rehabilitation. The court expressed hope that the applicant would take personal responsibility for his addiction and seek available services, suggesting this was the path to potential release from detention.

Ultimately, the court affirmed the delegate's decision to cancel the applicant's visa.