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

This matter concerned an application for judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) to affirm the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's (GWSC) visa. GWSC, a citizen of Thailand, had a complex history in Australia involving sex work, relationships, and significant criminal offending. Her visa was mandatorily cancelled under section 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) due to her criminal convictions, including cultivating a commercial quantity of cannabis, drug possession, and weapons offences. A delegate of the Minister subsequently decided not to revoke the cancellation, a decision that the Tribunal affirmed. The Federal Court had previously quashed an earlier Tribunal decision, leading to the current proceedings.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether there was "another reason" why the mandatory cancellation of GWSC's visa should be revoked, as contemplated by section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the *Migration Act*. This required determining if any identified reasons carried sufficient weight or significance to warrant the revocation of the visa cancellation, beyond the applicant simply passing the character test. The court also considered the nature and seriousness of GWSC's criminal conduct, the cumulative effect of her offending, and the potential risks she posed to the Australian community.

The Tribunal reasoned that GWSC did not pass the character test due to her serious criminal offending, which included drug manufacturing and weapons offences, committed on multiple occasions and while under judicial orders. The Tribunal noted that GWSC had housed her minor child at a drug-growing property and driven the child after using methamphetamine, thereby endangering him and other road users. While acknowledging GWSC's abstinence from drugs since her arrest and some rehabilitative steps, the Tribunal found that her progress had not been tested in the community. Given the unreliable nature of some of her evidence and concerns about her insight and reliability, the Tribunal concluded that while she presented a low risk of relapse or reoffending, this was a real risk the community should not have to tolerate. The Tribunal also found GWSC's claims of fearing harm from a former partner to be speculative and not sufficient to enliven Australia's non-refoulement obligations as "another reason" to revoke the visa cancellation.

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