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

This matter concerned the review of a decision by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa. The applicant's visa had been cancelled under subsection 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) due to her having a substantial criminal record, having been sentenced to terms of imprisonment exceeding 12 months for offences including robbery with actual violence and entering a dwelling with intent. The applicant sought revocation of this cancellation, but the delegate refused to revoke it. The applicant then sought review of the delegate's decision by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether there was "another reason" why the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa should be revoked, as contemplated by subsection 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act. This required the Tribunal to consider the overarching principles and specific considerations outlined in Direction no. 99, which governs decisions regarding visa refusal, cancellation, and revocation of mandatory cancellations. The Tribunal was required to balance the protection of the Australian community from criminal conduct against any countervailing considerations presented by the applicant.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal acknowledged the applicant's extensive criminal history, which commenced in 1991 and continued until 2021, encompassing over 60 offences. It also noted that the applicant had previously received warnings regarding the potential impact of her offending on her visa status. However, the Tribunal also considered evidence regarding the applicant's personal circumstances, including her difficult upbringing, history of substance abuse, and her close ties with the Aboriginal community, where her children are recognised as Indigenous. The Tribunal found that these factors, particularly in light of Direction 99's emphasis on affording a higher level of tolerance for conduct by non-citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their lives or from a very young age, constituted "another reason" to revoke the mandatory cancellation.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the delegate's decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation. The Tribunal substituted the delegate's decision with its own, revoking the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa.