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

This matter concerned an application for judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) regarding the non-revocation of a mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's Class XB Subclass 202 Global Special Humanitarian Visa. The Applicant did not pass the character test, leading to the mandatory cancellation. The central dispute was whether there was "another reason" to revoke this cancellation, as required by the relevant provisions of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).

The court was required to determine whether the AAT had erred in finding that there was another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa. This involved considering the Applicant's personal circumstances, including his past alcohol abuse and offending behaviour, his participation in rehabilitation programs, and his non-refoulement obligations. The court also had to assess the AAT's application of Ministerial Direction No. 90, which provides a framework for decision-makers considering character issues under section 501 of the *Migration Act*.

The court reasoned that Ministerial Direction No. 90 requires decision-makers to balance various considerations, including the protection of the Australian community, the nature of the conduct, the risk of re-offending, and other relevant factors such as international non-refoulement obligations. The Applicant provided evidence of his efforts at rehabilitation, including completing programs aimed at addressing violence and emotional regulation, and stated he no longer consumed alcohol. The court found that the AAT had properly considered these factors, including the Applicant's significant ties to the Australian community and the potential impact of removal, in concluding that there was another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation.

The court ultimately found no error in the AAT's decision. The AAT had correctly applied the principles of Ministerial Direction No. 90 and had adequately considered the evidence before it, including the Applicant's rehabilitation efforts and his non-refoulement obligations. Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed.