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

This matter concerned an application by Mr Lafaele against the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs regarding the non-revocation of a mandatory cancellation of his Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa. The applicant did not pass the character test, leading to the mandatory cancellation of his visa. The central dispute revolved around whether there was "another reason" to revoke this cancellation decision, particularly in light of his release into the community and the application of the *Migration Amendment (Aggregated Sentences) Act 2023* (Cth). The case was heard by Theodore Tavoularis SM.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant's circumstances presented "another reason" to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation. This involved assessing the applicant's recidivist risk factors, considering the evidence of a clinical and forensic psychologist, and applying the principles outlined in Ministerial Direction No. 99. Specifically, the court needed to weigh the protection of the Australian community against any other relevant considerations, including the nature and seriousness of the applicant's past conduct and the likelihood of future offending.

The court reasoned that while the applicant's offending history in both New Zealand and Australia was serious, and the risk to the Australian community was a significant consideration, the evidence presented, including a psychological report, indicated the presence of protective factors. These factors, such as accommodation and family support, had materialised since the applicant's return to the community. The court found that the totality of the applicant's unlawful conduct was very serious, and this was reinforced by his offending history in New Zealand. However, after considering the cumulative risk factors and the evidence of rehabilitation and protective measures, the court concluded that there was another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation. Consequently, the decision under review was set aside and substituted with a decision to revoke the mandatory cancellation.