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

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa. The applicant's visa had been cancelled under section 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) due to having a substantial criminal record, specifically for aggravated armed robbery and driving offences, which resulted in a sentence of imprisonment of 12 months or more. The applicant sought revocation of this cancellation decision.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the delegate's decision to refuse to revoke the visa cancellation was correct and preferable. This involved considering the principles and considerations outlined in Direction No. 79, particularly the primary consideration of protecting the Australian community from harm. The Tribunal had to assess the nature and seriousness of the applicant's criminal offending, the risk to the Australian community should further offences be committed, and other relevant considerations including the best interests of minor children, community expectations, the strength and duration of the applicant's ties to Australia, and any impediments to his return to New Zealand.

In reaching its decision, the Tribunal considered evidence regarding the applicant's criminal history, including the seriousness of the aggravated armed robbery conviction. It also took into account expert evidence concerning the applicant's drug use and mental health, and the potential impact these factors had on his risk of reoffending. The Tribunal weighed this against submissions and evidence from the applicant's family, friends, and community representatives, which spoke to his remorse, work ethic, family ties, and potential contributions to the community. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had been unable to remain drug-free despite strict urinalysis and consequences, and that mental health conditions could increase the risk of reoffending. The Tribunal ultimately found that the principles and considerations in Direction No. 79 weighed against revoking the cancellation decision.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision, meaning the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa was upheld.