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

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs to affirm the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa. The Applicant, who had been in Australia since childhood, did not pass the character test due to his criminal offending. The central question was whether there was another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision, despite the Applicant failing to meet the character requirements.

The court was required to determine whether the Applicant had established another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa, considering the principles outlined in Ministerial Direction No. 79. This involved assessing the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct, the risk to the Australian community, and any other relevant considerations, including the Applicant's background, the impact on his family, and his contributions to the community. The court also had to consider the Applicant's previous offending and a warning he received regarding future criminal conduct.

The court reasoned that the Applicant's criminal history, including multiple offences between 1997 and 2000, and a subsequent drug supply offence in 2017, demonstrated a pattern of serious conduct. The 2017 offence involved supplying a commercial quantity of cannabis destined for a remote Aboriginal community, which the sentencing judge described as being of a relatively high level of objective seriousness and involving a degree of cunning to obscure involvement. Despite the Applicant's claims of only seeking free cannabis, the court found his explanation unconvincing and noted the significant potential profits involved. The court also considered reports of domestic violence involving the Applicant. Applying Ministerial Direction No. 79, the court found that the protection of the Australian community from criminal activity was a primary consideration, and the Applicant's conduct posed an unacceptable risk. The court concluded that the Applicant had not established another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision.