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

The applicant, HDTY, sought to challenge the non-revocation of a mandatory cancellation of his Class XB Subclass 202 Global Special Humanitarian visa. The dispute arose because the applicant did not pass the character test due to a serious offence of kidnapping a person who suffered grievous bodily harm. The matter was heard by R Bellamy SM.

The court was required to determine whether there was "another reason" to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa, considering Ministerial Direction No. 90. This involved weighing various primary and other considerations, including the applicant's offending history, the risk of re-offending, and Australia's international non-refoulement obligations.

The court applied Ministerial Direction No. 90, which outlines the approach to considering revocation of visa cancellations. It noted that primary considerations are generally given greater weight than other considerations. The applicant had a significant criminal history, including multiple previous offences and the serious kidnap offence. While the court acknowledged the applicant's claims of fear of persecution and death if returned to South Sudan due to civil war, ethnic conflict, and his tribal affiliation, it found these claims, even when combined with other considerations, were not sufficiently compelling to outweigh the primary considerations related to his serious offending and the risk of re-offending. The court found that the applicant's conduct, particularly the kidnap offence, breached the trust of the Australian community to an extreme degree, and any risk of repeated violent offending was unacceptable.

Consequently, the court found that there was not another reason to revoke the cancellation of the applicant's visa. The decision under review, which affirmed the non-revocation of the visa cancellation, was therefore affirmed.