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

This matter concerned an application for review before the Tribunal of a delegate's decision not to revoke a mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's Special Category (Class TY) (Subclass 444) visa. The Applicant, a New Zealand citizen, had his visa cancelled under subsection 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and subsequently sought a review of the decision not to revoke that cancellation.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether there was "another reason" to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision, as contemplated by subsection 501CA(4) of the Act. This required the Tribunal to consider and apply Ministerial Direction No 79, which outlines the framework for assessing primary and other considerations when determining whether to revoke a visa cancellation. The Tribunal was tasked with determining the appropriate weight to be given to various considerations, including the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct, and any "other" considerations presented by the Applicant.

The Tribunal's reasoning emphasised the distinction between "primary" and "other" considerations, drawing on principles established in *Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection*. It was noted that while primary considerations are generally afforded greater weight, "other" considerations are not inherently secondary and may, in certain circumstances, be given the greatest weight. The Tribunal considered the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct, the risk to the Australian community, and other factors as outlined in paragraph 13.1 of Ministerial Direction No 79. The Tribunal ultimately affirmed the delegate's decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation.