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

This matter concerned an appeal against the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa, which had been cancelled due to the applicant possessing a substantial criminal record involving serious offending against women. The appeal was heard by Deputy President Britten-Jones of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether there was "another reason" why the original decision to cancel the applicant's visa should be revoked. In making this determination, the Tribunal had to consider the guiding principles and considerations set out in Direction No. 79, which included the protection of the Australian community, the best interests of minor children, the expectations of the Australian community, international non-refoulement obligations, the strength and duration of ties to Australia, and the extent of impediments if removed from Australia.

The Tribunal reasoned that the serious nature of the applicant's offending and the risk of reoffending weighed strongly in favour of affirming the cancellation decision, reflecting the expectations of the Australian community. However, the Tribunal also considered the applicant's submissions regarding the risk of harm if returned to South Sudan, including claims of potential destitution, targeting by rebel soldiers, and widespread human rights abuses such as ethnic cleansing, rape, torture, and arbitrary detention. These submissions were supported by reports from the UN Human Rights Council detailing the ongoing civil war and severe humanitarian crisis in South Sudan. The Tribunal noted that these risks were relevant to international non-refoulement obligations and the extent of impediments to removal.

The Tribunal found that the expectations of the Australian community, informed by the serious nature of the offending and the risk of reoffending, weighed heavily in favour of not revoking the cancellation decision. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's representations concerning the risk of harm if returned to South Sudan, acknowledging these as "other considerations" under Direction No. 79. The Tribunal ultimately affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's visa.