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

This matter concerned an application by JTYX (the applicant) to revoke a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (the respondent) to cancel his global humanitarian visa. The applicant, a citizen of South Sudan, had a history of serious criminal offending and instances of family violence in Australia. The respondent had cancelled the applicant's visa under the provisions of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The Administrative Appeals Tribunal, specifically Senior Member N A Manetta, was tasked with determining whether there was another reason to revoke the cancellation decision.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether, on the balance of probabilities, there was another reason to revoke the visa cancellation decision, notwithstanding the applicant's serious criminal conduct. This required the Tribunal to weigh the applicant's conduct and the risk he posed to the Australian community against other relevant considerations, including the best interests of his minor children and the dire circumstances he would face if returned to South Sudan. The Tribunal also considered the implications of section 197C of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and the criteria for a protection visa, particularly in light of the applicant's criminal history and potential danger to the community.

Senior Member Manetta reasoned that while the applicant's repeated anti-social offences and instances of family violence were serious and weighed heavily against revocation, other factors favoured the applicant. The Tribunal accepted that the applicant genuinely desired to contribute to his children's welfare and would suffer a significant loss if removed from Australia. Crucially, the Tribunal found that the applicant would face severe obstacles and a dire situation if returned to South Sudan. Applying the principles of Direction 90, which elevates domestic violence as a primary consideration, and considering the individual circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that the interests of the minor children and the dire situation in South Sudan constituted powerful considerations in favour of revocation. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant's criminal conduct likely disqualified him from obtaining a protection visa, thus making removal to South Sudan the probable outcome if the cancellation were affirmed.

Ultimately, the Tribunal determined that, on balance, the correct or preferable decision was to revoke the visa cancellation decision. This outcome was reached after carefully weighing the applicant's serious offending against the compelling humanitarian considerations, including the welfare of his children and the severe risks associated with his return to South Sudan.