Lal and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)

The matter of Lal and the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs concerned an application to the Tribunal for review of a delegate's decision to refuse to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa. The Applicant had failed to pass the character test due to a substantial criminal record, specifically a sentence of imprisonment of two years and six months. The primary dispute before the Tribunal was whether there was "another reason" to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision, as required by section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

The Tribunal was required to determine two key issues: firstly, whether the Applicant passed the character test, and secondly, if he did not, whether there existed another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa. The Applicant did not pass the character test as a matter of law, having been sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding 12 months, which met the thresholds in sections 501(6)(a) and 501(7)(c) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal's focus shifted to the second issue.

In considering whether there was another reason to revoke the visa cancellation, the Tribunal was bound by Ministerial Direction No. 110. This Direction mandates that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority and requires decision-makers to consider the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's conduct and the risk to the community. The Applicant's offending was found to be extremely serious, and the risk of recidivism was assessed as medium. Despite evidence of remorse and support from a church pastor, the Tribunal found that the factors weighing against revocation, particularly the extreme seriousness of the offending and the medium risk of recidivism, outweighed the factors favouring revocation.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that there was not another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa. The delegate's decision to refuse revocation was affirmed.