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

The applicant, JHZB, sought judicial review of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs' decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his Resident Return (Class BB) (Subclass 155) visa. The applicant did not pass the character test, which triggered the mandatory cancellation. The central dispute concerned whether there was "another reason" to revoke this cancellation, considering Ministerial Direction No. 79 and Australia's international non-refoulement obligations.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant's circumstances constituted "another reason" to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation. This involved assessing the weight to be given to various factors, including the applicant's extensive offending history, his background of trauma and mental health issues, and the potential impact of revocation on Australia's international obligations. The court also had to consider the evidence presented regarding the applicant's engagement with mental health services and his prospects for rehabilitation.

The court reasoned that while the applicant had a significant history of trauma and mental health challenges, including drug use and multiple suicide attempts, these factors, when weighed against his serious criminal conduct, did not constitute "another reason" to revoke the mandatory cancellation. The court noted that the applicant had not consistently engaged with treatment for his diagnosed conditions and that his offending behaviour, including driving offences and domestic violence, demonstrated a disregard for the law and the safety of others. Furthermore, the court found that the evidence did not establish a real risk of persecution or harm to the applicant should he be returned to his country of origin, thus not triggering Australia's non-refoulement obligations in a manner that would necessitate revocation.

Ultimately, the court affirmed the decision under review, concluding that it could not exercise the discretion to revoke the cancellation of the applicant's visa.