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

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to refuse to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's Skilled – Independent (Class BN) (Subclass 136) visa. The Applicant, who arrived in Australia at the age of 12, had committed numerous offences between 2017 and 2021, including drug supply, possession of weapons, and family violence. The court was required to consider whether there was "another reason" to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision, applying Ministerial Direction No. 99.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Applicant's juvenile offending, which was not recorded as convictions, could be considered under section 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) in light of the Federal Court's decision in *Thornton*, and how the various considerations under Ministerial Direction No. 99, including the Applicant's ties to Australia, his offending history, and the impediments to his re-establishment in the United Kingdom, should be weighed. The court also had to assess the weight to be given to factors such as family violence and the Applicant's relationship with his mother.

The court reasoned that, following *Thornton*, the Applicant's juvenile offending could not be taken into account for the purposes of section 501CA(4). In applying Ministerial Direction No. 99, the court acknowledged the Applicant's significant ties to Australia, having lived there for almost 16 years, and his strong relationship with his Australian citizen mother, despite past family violence. However, the court found that the Applicant's limited positive contributions to the community and his extensive offending, which included drug supply and violent behaviour, weighed heavily against revocation. The court also considered the potential impediments to the Applicant's re-establishment in the United Kingdom, noting his age, skills, and potential for social support from a newly discovered sister, but found these did not outweigh the risk posed by his offending history. The court ultimately affirmed the decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa.