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

This matter concerned an application by the Applicant for the revocation of the mandatory cancellation of his Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa. The dispute centred on whether the Applicant passed the character test and whether there was another reason why the decision to cancel his visa should be revoked, with consideration given to Ministerial Direction No. 90. The case was heard by A Julian-Armitage M.

The court was required to determine the Applicant's character in light of his substantial criminal record and assess the risk of re-offending. This involved evaluating the nature and seriousness of his past conduct, the potential harm to the Australian community if he were to re-offend, and the evidence of his rehabilitation and remorse. The court also had to consider the principles outlined in Ministerial Direction No. 90, including the protection of the Australian community, the nature of family violence, the best interests of minor children, and the expectations of the Australian community.

The court reasoned that while the Applicant's criminal conduct was serious and the potential harm if he re-offended would also be serious, there was evidence of significant rehabilitation. This included his participation in various courses related to anger management and domestic violence, his engagement with support services, and his expressed remorse and insight into his past behaviour. The court found that the Applicant presented a low to moderate risk of re-offending, and that his efforts towards rehabilitation, coupled with his awareness of the consequences of further offending, constituted another reason to revoke the visa cancellation.

Ultimately, the court set aside the decision to cancel the Applicant's visa and substituted it with a decision revoking the original cancellation.