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

This matter concerned an application by a New Zealand citizen, who arrived in Australia in 2012, to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa. The applicant accepted that he did not pass the character test due to a substantial criminal record, including convictions for dangerous driving occasioning death and drug and alcohol-related offending, as well as an extensive traffic history. The central issue before Deputy President Boyle of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was whether there was "another reason" why the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa should be revoked, pursuant to section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).

The Tribunal was required to determine if any circumstances presented by the applicant constituted "another reason" to revoke the visa cancellation, notwithstanding his failure to pass the character test. This involved considering the principles and considerations outlined in Ministerial Direction 90, which governs decisions regarding visa refusal, cancellation, and revocation of mandatory cancellations. The Tribunal had to weigh the seriousness of the applicant's conduct against any countervailing factors presented.

In reaching its decision, the Tribunal applied the provisions of section 501CA of the *Migration Act* and the framework established by Ministerial Direction 90. The Tribunal noted that the applicant's substantial criminal record meant he did not pass the character test. Consequently, the sole avenue for revocation was the existence of "another reason." The Tribunal considered the primary consideration of protecting the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct, as detailed in paragraph 8.1 of Direction 90, and the specific types of conduct considered serious under paragraph 8.1.1. After reviewing the evidence and submissions, the Tribunal found that there was not another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa.

The Tribunal affirmed the reviewable decision, meaning the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa was not revoked.