Fiu and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration)

This matter concerned an application by Mr Fiu to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for the revocation of a mandatory visa cancellation. The dispute arose from the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection's decision to cancel Mr Fiu's visa, which Mr Fiu sought to have set aside. The decision was made by Member Regina Perton.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether there was "another reason" why the mandatory cancellation of Mr Fiu's visa should be revoked, having regard to the primary considerations set out in Direction 65. These primary considerations included the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct, the best interests of minor children in Australia, and the expectations of the Australian community. The Tribunal also had to give due consideration to the General Guidance and Principles in the Preamble of Direction 65, which emphasised the importance of protecting the community from harm and the expectation that non-citizens who commit serious crimes should generally forfeit their privilege to remain in Australia.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the primary consideration of protecting the Australian community. It noted that paragraph 13.1(2) of Direction 65 requires consideration of the nature and seriousness of the person's conduct to date, and the risk to the community should further offences be committed. In applying these principles, the Tribunal had regard to Mr Fiu's criminal history, which spanned a significant period, and the seriousness and nature of the offences for which he had received custodial sentences. The Tribunal concluded that, in light of these factors, it could not be satisfied that there was another reason to revoke the cancellation decision.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, meaning Mr Fiu's visa cancellation remained in effect.