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

This matter concerned an application by GCRM (the applicant) to review a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (the respondent) not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa. The applicant, a citizen of South Sudan, had failed to pass the character test due to serious violent offending. The central question before the court was whether there was "another reason" to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision, as contemplated by the relevant legislative provisions and Ministerial Direction No. 99.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Tribunal had erred in its assessment of the factors relevant to the revocation of the mandatory visa cancellation. Specifically, the court was required to consider the weight to be given to the applicant's difficult childhood, his efforts at rehabilitation through the Shalom House program, his remorse, and the best interests of his minor child, against the seriousness of his offending and the risk of recidivism. The court also had to determine if these mitigating factors constituted "another reason" to revoke the cancellation, notwithstanding the applicant's reoffending after a previous visa cancellation.

The court reasoned that while the applicant's offending was serious and posed a risk to the community, and that his previous opportunity for reform had been squandered, the interests of his minor child were a primary consideration. The court found that the applicant had made a determined effort to reform himself through the Shalom House program, demonstrating genuine remorse and improved moral insight. The court concluded that the applicant's commitment to his daughter was genuine and that her having access to him as a positive role model, and his potential future financial support, were significant factors. Applying Ministerial Direction No. 99, the court found that these considerations, particularly in light of the applicant's rehabilitation efforts and his role as a father, constituted "another reason" to revoke the mandatory cancellation.

Consequently, the court set aside the decision under review and substituted a decision that the cancellation of the applicant's visa be revoked.