Kohli and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr. Kohli against the mandatory cancellation of his skilled visa. The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection had cancelled the visa on character grounds, specifically due to Mr. Kohli possessing a substantial criminal record. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) affirmed the decision to cancel the visa, and Mr. Kohli sought judicial review of the AAT's decision.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the AAT had erred in its application of Direction 65, which sets out the considerations for mandatory visa cancellation. Specifically, the court had to determine if the AAT had properly considered the three primary considerations outlined in paragraph 13(2) of the Direction: the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct, the best interests of minor children in Australia, and the expectations of the Australian community.

The court found that the AAT had correctly applied Direction 65. In assessing the protection of the Australian community, the AAT had regard to the nature and seriousness of Mr. Kohli's conduct and the risk of reoffending. Mr. Kohli's extensive criminal history, including multiple convictions for driving with a high-range prescribed concentration of alcohol and driving while disqualified, was considered very serious. The court noted that these offences demonstrated a disregard for the law and a pattern of behaviour that posed a risk to the community. While the AAT acknowledged that Mr. Kohli might face some initial difficulties re-establishing himself in India, it concluded that this impediment was unlikely to be significant given his qualifications and family support, and therefore did not outweigh the primary considerations.

Consequently, the court affirmed the AAT's decision, finding that the decision to not revoke the cancellation of Mr. Kohli's visa was the correct one.