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

This matter concerned an application for review of the Minister's decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's Class WE Subclass 050 – Bridging (General) visa. The Applicant did not pass the character test due to criminal offending. The core dispute revolved around whether there was "another reason" to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision, as contemplated by the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The decision was made by Theodore Tavoularis SM in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the Applicant's circumstances constituted "another reason" to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa. This involved considering the Applicant's offending, which occurred when he was a minor but was sentenced as an adult, and assessing the risk he posed to the Australian community. The Tribunal also had to apply Ministerial Direction No. 90, which provides a framework for decision-makers considering visa cancellations, including the primary and other considerations relevant to such decisions.

In reaching its decision, the Tribunal applied the principles outlined in Ministerial Direction No. 90. It found the Applicant's offending to be of a "very serious, more likely extremely serious" nature. The Tribunal considered the risk of future harm to the Australian community, noting that the tolerance for risk decreases as the potential harm increases. While acknowledging the Applicant's engagement with psychologists, his adherence to his faith, and some expression of remorse, the Tribunal found these factors insufficient to outweigh the seriousness of his conduct and the potential harm if he were to re-offend. The Tribunal noted that the Applicant had not completed any specific rehabilitation programs for sexual offenders and that his parents had not undergone counselling to understand the causative factors of his offending. The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant's conduct was so serious that even strong countervailing considerations were insufficient to justify revoking the mandatory cancellation.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa.