GYTW and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration)

This matter concerned an application by GYTW, a citizen of Iraq, for review of a decision by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his protection visa. GYTW arrived in Australia in 2010 and was granted a protection visa due to his fear of harm in Iraq. He has since been convicted of numerous criminal offences, including two counts of armed robbery in 2016, for which he remains imprisoned. The visa was mandatorily cancelled in October 2017.

The Tribunal was required to determine if there was "another reason" why the mandatory cancellation of GYTW's visa should be revoked, as contemplated by s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This involved assessing whether any identified reason carried sufficient weight or significance to satisfy the decision-maker that the cancellation should be revoked, drawing on the principles established in *Viane v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection*. The Tribunal considered various factors, including the protection of the Australian community, the expectations of the Australian community, the best interests of minor children, Australia's non-refoulement obligations, the strength and nature of GYTW's ties to Australia, and the impediments he would face if removed.

The Tribunal found that GYTW's offending was objectively very serious, had caused harm to the community, and presented an unacceptable future risk. While acknowledging sympathy for his early life circumstances and the basis of his protection visa, the Tribunal noted his offending began soon after arrival and escalated in seriousness. Despite some rehabilitative steps and limited ties to Australia, primarily through his cousin's family, the Tribunal concluded that the primary considerations of community protection and expectations weighed very strongly against revocation. Although Australia's non-refoulement obligations and impediments to return to Iraq weighed strongly in favour of revocation, and the best interests of minor children weighed slightly, these were outweighed by the factors against revocation. Consequently, the Tribunal found there was not another reason of sufficient weight or significance to enliven the statutory power to revoke the cancellation.