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

This matter concerned an application by a New Zealand citizen for the revocation of a mandatory visa cancellation. The applicant's visa was cancelled under s 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) because he failed to pass the character test, having been sentenced to a total effective term of imprisonment of three years and six months for assault occasioning bodily harm and deprivation of liberty. The applicant sought to have this cancellation decision revoked under s 501CA of the Act, requiring the Tribunal to determine if there was "another reason" to revoke the cancellation, having regard to the considerations outlined in Direction No. 99.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether, despite the applicant not passing the character test due to his substantial criminal record, there existed "another reason" to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation. This required the Tribunal to weigh the primary and other considerations set out in Direction No. 99, including the protection of the Australian community, the nature and seriousness of the applicant's offending, the risk to the community should he re-offend, the strength of his ties to Australia, and the best interests of his child.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's extensive criminal history in both New Zealand and Australia, noting that his most serious offending involved violent acts against his former partner, including assault occasioning bodily harm and deprivation of liberty, committed in the presence of their young daughter. The Tribunal found that the first primary consideration, the protection of the Australian community, weighed heavily against revocation, particularly given the serious nature of the applicant's violent offending. While acknowledging the applicant's ties to Australia and the best interests of his child, the Tribunal concluded that these factors were outweighed by the need to protect the Australian community from further harm. Consequently, the Tribunal determined that there was no "another reason" to revoke the cancellation decision.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's visa.