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

This matter concerned an appeal by Ms George, a New Zealand citizen holding a Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa, against the cancellation of her visa under section 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). Ms George had arrived in Australia in 1982 and had resided there continuously since that time. Her visa had been cancelled on three previous occasions, with the discretion to revoke the cancellation being exercised in her favour on two of those occasions. The current decision under review was the third cancellation of her visa, which the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was asked to consider.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether there was "another reason" under section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act why the mandatory cancellation of Ms George's visa should be revoked, given that she conceded she did not pass the character test due to her criminal record, which included convictions for fraud and offences against the person, and sentences of imprisonment. In determining this, the Tribunal was required to consider Direction No. 79, which outlines the factors to be taken into account when assessing whether to revoke a visa cancellation, including the protection of the Australian community, the best interests of minor children, and the expectations of the Australian community.

The Tribunal reasoned that while Ms George had strong ties to Australia, including four Australian-born children and a long period of residence, these factors were outweighed by the seriousness of her offending and the significant risk of reoffending. The Tribunal noted that Ms George had repeatedly reoffended despite previous opportunities to reform and had not presented a coherent strategy to address her drug addiction, which was inextricably linked to her criminal conduct. Although the best interests of her minor children were considered, this factor weighed only slightly in her favour as they had other parental figures and limited contact with her. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the risk of reoffending was determinative, leading it to affirm the decision to cancel Ms George's visa.