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

This matter concerned the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa. The applicant, a New Zealand citizen, had his visa cancelled under section 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) because he had a substantial criminal record, having been convicted of intentionally causing injury and making threats to kill, and sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 15 months. The applicant sought revocation of this cancellation decision. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether it was satisfied that the applicant passed the character test or that there was another reason why the visa cancellation decision should be revoked.

The Tribunal was required to consider the relevant considerations outlined in Direction 90, which include primary considerations such as the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct, whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence, the best interests of minor children in Australia, and the expectations of the Australian community. Other considerations, such as international non-refoulement obligations, extent of impediments if removed, impact on victims, and links to the Australian community, were also to be taken into account, with primary considerations generally afforded greater weight.

The Tribunal found that while the best interests of the applicant's daughter weighed slightly in favour of revocation, this consideration was diminished by the applicant's distant relationship with her and the fact that he had not seen her since 2015. The Tribunal also considered the expectations of the Australian community, noting that the community expects non-citizens to be refused or have their visas cancelled if they raise serious character concerns through conduct such as serious crimes of a violent nature. Ultimately, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant passed the character test or that there was another reason to revoke the visa cancellation decision.

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