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

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to refuse to revoke the mandatory cancellation of Mr Hill's visa. Mr Hill's visa had been cancelled following his sentencing for drug offences to a term of imprisonment of three years and six months. The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs was the respondent.

The court was required to determine the legal issues surrounding the application of the Direction 99, specifically how the primary and other considerations were to be weighed in deciding whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a visa. The central question was whether the Tribunal had correctly applied the principles outlined in the Direction, particularly concerning the relative weight to be given to primary considerations (protection of the Australian community, best interests of minor children, and community expectations) and other considerations (such as ties to Australia and impediments to removal).

The court considered the principles informing the decision-maker, including Australia's sovereign right to determine who remains in the country and the expectation that non-citizens will be law-abiding. It noted that while primary considerations generally carry greater weight, the Direction allows for other considerations to outweigh primary ones in specific circumstances. The court referenced *Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection*, which affirmed that an inquiry must be made as to whether other considerations should be afforded the greatest weight due to circumstances outside the general application of the principles. The evaluation of these factors occurs within the context of the individual case.