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

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of GGJY and the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. The dispute concerned the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa under section 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) due to the Applicant not passing the character test. The central question before the Tribunal was whether there was "another reason" to revoke this cancellation, as permitted by section 501CA(4) of the Act.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the Applicant had established "another reason" to revoke the visa cancellation. This involved weighing various considerations, including the protection of the Australian community, the Applicant's links to Australia, the best interests of her minor child, community expectations, and any impediments to her removal. The Tribunal also had regard to Direction No. 99, which provides guidance on the application of section 501 of the Act.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal acknowledged the Applicant did not pass the character test. It then assessed the evidence presented by the Applicant regarding her rehabilitation, including her cessation of drug use, remorse for her past offending, and efforts to distance herself from negative influences. The Tribunal considered the seriousness of the Applicant's past offending, which included armed robbery, larceny, receiving stolen property, and family violence, as well as violent conduct while in prison. It also took into account expert evidence assessing the Applicant's risk of re-offending as moderate. The Tribunal weighed these factors against the Applicant's strong ties to Australia, her role as a parent to a minor child in Australia, and potential fears of persecution if returned to Iran, although the latter were not determinative in this hearing.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the evidence weighed in favour of revoking the delegate's decision to cancel the Applicant's visa. The Tribunal concluded that, on balance, there was another reason to revoke the cancellation.