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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Hamze, a citizen of Lebanon, against the decision of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migration Services and Multicultural Affairs not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his Spouse (Class BS Subclass 801) visa. Mr Hamze had arrived in Australia in 2007 and subsequently accumulated multiple criminal convictions between 2009 and 2018, leading to the mandatory cancellation of his visa under section 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) due to his failure to pass the character test. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to review the delegate's decision not to revoke this cancellation.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether there was "another reason" why the mandatory visa cancellation should be revoked, as contemplated by section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act. This required an evaluative process to consider all factors for and against revocation. The Tribunal also had to consider the best interests of Mr Hamze's minor children, as well as the expectations of the Australian community, in accordance with Ministerial Direction No. 79.

The Tribunal considered Mr Hamze's criminal history, which included violent offences against female victims, dishonesty offences, and drug use. It noted Mr Hamze's inconsistent and evasive evidence regarding his offending and addiction. While the Tribunal accepted that the best interests of Mr Hamze's two children weighed slightly in favour of revoking the visa cancellation, it found no independent evidence to corroborate his claims about his parental role or the alleged psychological impact of his potential repatriation. The Tribunal was unable to accept his contention that his offending was to financially support his children, finding that his contact with them had been intermittent and that others had played the primary parental role. Furthermore, the Tribunal's assessment of Mr Hamze's risk of relapse into addiction and recidivism made it less likely he would fulfil his aspirations of playing a positive parental role.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that the limited weight given to the best interests of the minor children was insufficient to outweigh the other considerations, including the seriousness of Mr Hamze's criminal conduct and the expectations of the Australian community.