KMXK and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)

This matter concerned an application by KMXK (the applicant) to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his Global Special Humanitarian visa under section 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The applicant, who arrived in Australia as a child refugee, had accumulated a substantial criminal record, including convictions for property offences and a serious assault involving a knife. The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (the respondent) had cancelled the applicant's visa based on this criminal history. The applicant sought review of this decision before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether there was "another reason" why the visa cancellation decision should be revoked, as contemplated by section 501CA(4) of the *Migration Act*. In making this determination, the Tribunal had to consider Ministerial Direction No. 90, which outlines factors to be taken into account, including the protection of the Australian community, the best interests of minor children, the strength and nature of ties to Australia, and the extent of impediments if removed from Australia. The Tribunal also had to consider the nature and seriousness of the applicant's offending conduct and the risk of future offending.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal acknowledged the applicant's extensive criminal history, including a serious assault involving a knife. However, it found that while the offending was extensive, it was not at the most serious end of the spectrum. The Tribunal was satisfied that there were good reasons to believe the applicant's offending would not be repeated, particularly given his engagement with rehabilitation programs and the fact that his most serious offending occurred as a juvenile. The Tribunal also gave weight to the best interests of the applicant's child, a matter conceded by the respondent. Weighing these factors, the Tribunal concluded that removing the applicant from the community to which he was connected and detaining him for an extended period would not be appropriate.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the decision to cancel the applicant's visa and, in substitution, revoked the cancellation of his Global Special Humanitarian visa.