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

This matter concerned an application by the Applicant to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) for review of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs' decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's Class WA Subclass 010 Bridging A (Temporary) visa. The Applicant did not pass the character test due to serious criminal conduct, including violent assaults and stabbing. The central dispute was whether there was another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision, with particular regard to Ministerial Direction No. 99.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the Applicant's criminal conduct and other serious behaviour warranted the non-revocation of his visa. This involved assessing the Applicant's criminal history, the nature and seriousness of his conduct, the risk to the Australian community, and the best interests of any minor children in Australia. The Tribunal had to apply the principles and considerations outlined in Ministerial Direction No. 99, which provides a framework for decision-makers when considering the revocation of mandatory visa cancellations.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal considered the Applicant's extensive criminal history, including violent assaults and stabbing, as detailed in court records. It applied the factors set out in Ministerial Direction No. 99, particularly concerning the protection of the Australian community and the best interests of minor children. The Tribunal noted that while the Applicant's conduct was serious, a specific provision within the Direction (paragraph 8.3(4)(a)(iii)) neutralised the weight given to certain factors that might otherwise favour revocation, due to the Applicant not being ordinarily resident in Australia during his formative years and offending shortly after arrival. The Tribunal also considered the best interests of any minor children, but this primary consideration was given neutral weight.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa.