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

This matter concerned an application by the Applicant, Laimani, to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa. The visa was cancelled under section 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) because the Applicant did not pass the character test. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) was required to consider whether the discretion under section 501CA of the Act to revoke the mandatory cancellation should be exercised.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether there was "another reason" why the mandatory visa cancellation decision should be revoked, as contemplated by section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act. In determining this, the Tribunal was required to consider the relevant primary and other considerations outlined in Direction No 79, specifically focusing on the protection of the Australian community. This involved assessing the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct to date, the risk of re-offending, and the expectations of the Australian community.

The Tribunal reasoned that in assessing the protection of the Australian community, it must consider the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct and the risk of future offending. The Applicant's criminal history included a violent assault committed when he was 16 years old, which resulted in serious injuries to the victim and required significant medical treatment. The sentencing judge described the attack as being within the mid-range of objective seriousness. The Tribunal noted that the Applicant was sentenced as an adult, with immaturity not being considered a significant factor in his offending. The Tribunal also considered the Applicant's employment history and efforts to re-engage with the community.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the mandatory visa cancellation decision should be set aside and substituted with a decision to revoke the cancellation.