HMFZ and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration)

This matter concerned an application by HMFZ for the revocation of a mandatory visa cancellation. The dispute arose after the Minister for Home Affairs cancelled HMFZ's visa under section 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) due to HMFZ failing the character test. HMFZ subsequently made representations seeking the revocation of this decision, which were considered by a delegate of the Minister. The delegate affirmed the mandatory cancellation, leading to the present review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether there was "another reason" why the mandatory visa cancellation decision should be revoked, as contemplated by section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act. In undertaking this assessment, the Tribunal was bound to consider the matters outlined in Ministerial Direction No. 65, which includes primary considerations such as the protection of the Australian community, the best interests of minor children, and the expectations of the Australian community, as well as other considerations including the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia, the impact on victims, and the extent of impediments if removed from Australia.

The Tribunal reasoned that while HMFZ had lived in Australia for half his life and had significant emotional and support networks here, evidenced by statutory declarations from his de facto partner, brother, and mother, these factors were not overwhelmingly in his favour. Regarding the impact on victims, the Tribunal found no evidence of ongoing contact or interest from his former partner and her husband concerning the assaults committed in 2009, rendering their interests irrelevant. While his former partner's current de facto partner wrote in his favour, the Tribunal noted the difficulty in assigning weight to such submissions from victims of domestic violence without the opportunity for cross-examination. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the various considerations, both favourable and unfavourable to HMFZ, left the matter in balance, with no single factor tending overwhelmingly in one direction.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision, meaning the mandatory visa cancellation was not set aside.