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

This matter concerned an appeal by the Applicant, Ms. Khalifeh, against a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to cancel her visa. The dispute arose because the Applicant was found to have a substantial criminal record, meaning she did not pass the character test as required by the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The Applicant argued that despite failing the character test, there was another reason why the mandatory visa cancellation should be revoked. The case was heard by K Raif SM in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether there was "another reason" to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation, notwithstanding the Applicant's failure to pass the character test due to her substantial criminal record. This required the Tribunal to consider various factors outlined in Direction 99, including the protection of the Australian community, the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct, the strength and duration of her ties to Australia, the best interests of any minor children, the expectations of the Australian community, the legal consequences of the decision, the extent of impediments to removal, and the impact on victims.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on applying the principles of Direction 99 to the Applicant's circumstances. It acknowledged the Applicant's substantial criminal record, including a conviction for causing grievous bodily harm, which involved a spontaneous and irrational act of violence. The Tribunal noted that while the Applicant had expressed remorse and demonstrated some insight into her behaviour, and had supportive family ties and rehabilitation efforts, these factors were weighed against the seriousness of her offending, particularly the element of family violence. The Tribunal found that the Applicant's criminal conduct was serious and that the protection of the Australian community weighed against revoking the cancellation.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the Applicant did not meet the requirements for the revocation of the visa cancellation. The Tribunal affirmed the original decision to cancel the Applicant's visa.