JFSQ and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for the revocation of a mandatory visa cancellation made by the Minister for Home Affairs. The applicant, who failed the character test due to a substantial criminal record under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), sought to have the cancellation revoked. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether there was another reason why the cancellation decision should be revoked, considering factors including the best interests of minor children and Australia's non-refoulement obligations.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had established "another reason" sufficient to warrant the revocation of the mandatory visa cancellation under section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the *Migration Act 1958*. This required the Tribunal to weigh various primary and other considerations as outlined in Ministerial Direction 79, including the protection of the Australian community from criminal conduct, the best interests of minor children, and Australia's international non-refoulement obligations.

The Tribunal applied the framework of Ministerial Direction 79, which mandates that primary considerations generally be given greater weight than other considerations. It found that two of the three primary considerations – protection of the Australian community from criminal conduct and the expectations of the Australian community – weighed heavily against revoking the cancellation. While the best interests of minor children and certain other considerations weighed in the applicant's favour, they were insufficient to outweigh the significant concerns regarding community safety. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's criminal offending was so serious that any risk of repetition was unacceptable, and therefore affirmed the Minister's delegate's decision not to revoke the visa cancellation.