Jal v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of Mr Jal, who sought the revocation of the mandatory cancellation of his visa. Mr Jal's visa was cancelled under section 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 due to his substantial criminal record. The Tribunal's task was to determine whether the discretion under section 501CA(4) of the Act should be exercised to revoke this mandatory cancellation.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether there was "another reason" why the original decision to cancel Mr Jal's visa should be revoked, as contemplated by section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act. In making this determination, the Tribunal was required to comply with Direction No 65, issued by the Minister under section 499 of the Act. This Direction outlines principles for considering visa refusal, cancellation, and revocation, including the expectation that serious criminal offending generally leads to visa denial or forfeiture, and that Australia has a low tolerance for such conduct by those who have only recently contributed to the community. However, it also notes that a longer period of residence and contribution may warrant a higher level of tolerance, and that consequences for minor children and immediate family members are relevant considerations.

The Tribunal considered Mr Jal's representations, which included claims of a risk of harm if returned to Sudan due to ongoing tribal conflict and political unrest, and potential breaches of non-refoulement obligations. Mr Jal also detailed his personal development and rehabilitation while in custody, highlighting participation in violence prevention programs, improved cognitive and emotional regulation skills, and strong family support in Australia. He expressed remorse for his past actions and a commitment to living a law-abiding and productive life. The Tribunal affirmed the original decision, meaning the mandatory cancellation of Mr Jal's visa was not revoked.