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

This matter concerned an application to review the decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's Partner (Residence) (Class BS) (subclass 801) visa. The Applicant failed to pass the character test, leading to the mandatory cancellation of his visa. The dispute centred on whether there was "another reason" to revoke this cancellation, considering Ministerial Direction No. 90. The decision was made by Theodore Tavoularis SM in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the Applicant had established "another reason" to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa, and in doing so, how the principles outlined in Ministerial Direction No. 90, particularly regarding the primary and other considerations, should be applied to the Applicant's circumstances. The Tribunal was required to assess the weight to be given to various factors, including the protection of the Australian community, the nature of the Applicant's conduct, and his ties to Australia, in light of the Applicant's failure to meet the character requirements.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the Applicant's prior warning regarding his visa status. The Applicant's visa had previously been cancelled and then restored on 1 December 2017, with an explicit warning that further criminal offending could lead to reconsideration of his visa status. The Applicant's explanation for his subsequent offending, suggesting he did not fully grasp the seriousness of the consequences or the law, was found to be unconvincing and self-serving. The Tribunal found it improbable that the Applicant, facing deportation, would not have considered such a significant warning. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation.