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

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the respondent not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa. The applicant, who arrived in Australia in 1987 as a minor, had his visa mandatorily cancelled under s 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) following his conviction in September 2020 for aggravated robbery and supplying a dangerous drug, for which he received a sentence of imprisonment exceeding 12 months. The applicant subsequently made representations for the revocation of this cancellation, which were refused by a delegate of the respondent on 16 November 2021. The applicant sought reconsideration of this refusal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether there was "another reason" to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa, as contemplated by s 501CA(4) of the Act. This required the Tribunal to consider various factors, including the protection of the Australian community, the best interests of any minor children affected by the decision, and the applicant's character and ties to Australia, in accordance with Ministerial Direction No. 90. The Tribunal was specifically directed to consider whether certain past convictions constituted "family violence" and to assess the applicant's potential to play a positive parental role in the future concerning any minor children.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the application of Ministerial Direction No. 90. It found that the applicant's convictions for engaging in conduct convening DVOs, breaching DVOs, and failing to comply with restraining orders, while serious, did not constitute "family violence" as defined by the Direction because the victims were not considered "family members" in the context of the Direction, and in some instances, there were no convictions or natural justice was not afforded. Regarding the best interests of minor children, the Tribunal noted the applicant had no minor children of his own. While he expressed a desire to establish relationships with his grandchildren and teenage nephews and nieces, the Tribunal found insufficient evidence to conclude he would play a positive parental role in their lives, particularly given the limited existing contact and the absence of court orders. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's ties to Australia, including his long residence and family connections, but ultimately found that these did not outweigh the mandatory cancellation decision.

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