HNGT and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)

This matter concerned an application by HNGT for review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to refuse to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa. The applicant did not pass the character test due to having a substantial criminal record, meaning the mandatory cancellation under section 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) could not be revoked on that basis alone. The central dispute before the Tribunal was whether there was "another reason" to revoke the cancellation, as contemplated by section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act.

The Tribunal was required to determine if any "other considerations" presented by the applicant, when weighed against the primary consideration of protecting the Australian community, were sufficient to constitute "another reason" for revoking the visa cancellation. This involved an assessment of the applicant's personal circumstances, including his early life experiences in Zimbabwe, his family violence offences, and any impediments to his removal or non-refoulement obligations, against the seriousness of his conduct and the risk he posed to the Australian community. The Tribunal had to apply the principles outlined in Direction No. 99, which guides decision-makers in this balancing exercise.

The Tribunal reasoned that the "weighing process" in determining whether "another reason" exists is not a mathematical calculation but an evaluative task requiring the decision-maker's personal understanding of the significance of each factor. The Tribunal considered the applicant's history of family violence offences as a serious matter weighing against revocation, as outlined in paragraph 8.1.1(a)(iii) of Direction No. 99. While acknowledging the applicant's difficult early life and the potential impact on his development, the Tribunal found that these factors, when balanced against the nature of his offending and the need to protect the Australian community, did not amount to "another reason" that carried sufficient weight to warrant the revocation of the visa cancellation. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation.