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

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate of the Minister's decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa. The Applicant, a 28-year-old man who arrived in Australia as a child, had his visa mandatorily cancelled pursuant to s 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) in 2015. Despite a previous warning about further offending, the Applicant committed nine further offences between September 2016 and January 2019, including aggravated burglary and breach of protective bail conditions, leading to a second mandatory cancellation of his visa in October 2019. The Applicant sought revocation of this second cancellation decision, which was refused by the delegate, leading to the present review.

The Tribunal was required to determine two primary issues: first, whether the Applicant passed the character test as defined by s 501(6) of the *Migration Act*; and second, if he did not pass the character test, whether there was another reason to be satisfied that the cancellation decision should be revoked under s 501CA(4) of the *Migration Act*. In considering these issues, the Tribunal was directed to have regard to Direction No 90, which outlines considerations including the protection of the Australian community, the nature and seriousness of the conduct, the risk to the community, offences involving family violence, the best interests of the Applicant's minor daughter and siblings, community expectations, Australia's non-refoulement obligations, impact on victims, links to the Australian community, and the prospect of indefinite or prolonged detention.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal found that the Applicant did not pass the character test due to his substantial criminal record, including serious offences. The Tribunal considered the various factors outlined in Direction No 90. It noted the Applicant's evasiveness and lack of remorse during the hearing, and found that he lacked insight into his offending. While acknowledging the Applicant's ties to Australia and the best interests of his minor daughter, the Tribunal weighed these against the seriousness of his criminal conduct, particularly offences involving family violence and breaches of bail conditions. The Tribunal also considered the Applicant's Sudanese nationality and previous finding by the Tribunal that Australia owed him protection obligations. Ultimately, the Tribunal was not satisfied that there was another reason to revoke the cancellation decision, finding that the risk to the Australian community and the nature of the Applicant's conduct were significant.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa.