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

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to cancel the applicant's visa under subsection 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The applicant had a substantial criminal record and did not pass the character test, leading to the mandatory cancellation of his visa. The applicant sought revocation of this cancellation under subsection 501CA(4) of the Act, arguing there was another reason why the cancellation should be revoked. The decision was made by A Poljak SM.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether there was another reason why the visa cancellation should be revoked, considering the factors outlined in Direction 90. This involved assessing the strength, nature, and duration of the applicant's ties to Australia, the extent of impediments to his removal, the best interests of any minor children affected by the decision, and the expectations of the Australian community. The Tribunal was required to weigh these considerations in determining whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation.

In reaching its decision, the Tribunal considered the applicant's ties to Australia, noting he arrived at age 20 and had contributed positively through work in construction and mining. However, the Tribunal found this consideration to be neutral, as the applicant's acknowledgement of not speaking to some family members for extended periods weakened the perceived strength of his familial links. The Tribunal also considered the best interests of minor children, finding a slight weight in favour of revocation concerning his niece Bella, but noting the lack of evidence regarding his relationship with her and that another niece, Candace, did not reside in Australia. Crucially, the Tribunal found that the applicant's criminal offending did not meet the expectations of the Australian community, which weighed heavily against revocation.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's visa. The Tribunal concluded that the considerations weighed against revocation, particularly the community's expectation that non-citizens obey Australian laws.