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

This matter concerned an application by Mr Jbara (the Applicant) to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa, which had been cancelled under section 501CA(4) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) because he did not pass the character test due to dishonestly obtaining property and financial advantage by deception. The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (the Minister) was the respondent. The decision was made by Mrs J C Kelly, Senior Member, of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether there was "another reason" why the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa should be revoked, having regard to Ministerial Direction No. 99. This involved considering various factors, including the protection of the Australian community, the strength, nature, and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia, the best interests of any minor children in Australia, the expectations of the Australian community, the legal consequences of the decision, the extent of impediments if removed, and the impact on victims.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal emphasised the need for a genuine and honest confrontation of the human consequences of the decision, drawing on remarks from *Hands v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection* and *Law v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs*. The Tribunal found that while the Applicant's criminal conduct, which began after he had been in Australia for approximately ten years, was serious and weighed heavily against revocation, his repeated disregard for the law, including breaches of parole and offending while on bail, was a significant concern. The Tribunal also considered Queensland charges, noting that no prejudicial inference should be drawn beyond their existence, as per *Taulahi v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection* and *Katoa v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs*. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that there was another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa.

The Tribunal set aside the reviewable decision and made a new decision that there was another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa.