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

This matter concerned an application by a New Zealand citizen for the revocation of a mandatory visa cancellation decision. The applicant had failed to pass the character test due to his offending history. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether there was another reason why the mandatory visa cancellation decision should be revoked, considering the principles and considerations outlined in Direction No. 79.

The Tribunal was tasked with assessing various factors relevant to the protection of the Australian community, including the nature and seriousness of the applicant's conduct, the risk of re-offending, and the cumulative effect of his offending. It also had to consider other relevant factors, such as the applicant's efforts at rehabilitation, his ties to Australia, and the best interests of any children involved. The Tribunal was guided by the principle that remaining in Australia is a privilege for non-citizens who are law-abiding and do not cause harm to the community.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal considered the applicant's history of alcohol and drug abuse, which contributed to his offending behaviour, including an Apprehended Violence Order against his wife and son. It also noted his periods of incarceration and his conduct within prison and immigration detention, where he had taken on responsibilities and assisted other detainees. The Tribunal weighed these factors against the seriousness of his past conduct and the need to protect the Australian community. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the applicant could not rely on specific provisions for revocation and that there was no other compelling reason to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation decision.