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

This matter concerned an application for revocation of the mandatory cancellation of a Bridging E visa held by LBQY, a national of Vietnam. The cancellation was triggered by LBQY's failure to pass the character test due to a conviction for cultivating and trafficking a commercial quantity of cannabis. LBQY's application for a Protection Visa had previously been refused, a decision that had been upheld on judicial review.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether there was "another reason" to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation, as contemplated by the relevant Ministerial Direction. This required the Tribunal to consider various factors, including the nature and seriousness of LBQY's offending conduct, the potential impact on any minor children, and the protection of the Australian community. The Tribunal also had to consider LBQY's claims for protection, which had been the subject of previous adverse decisions, and the fact that he intended to pursue a further appeal against the refusal of his Protection Visa.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal noted that LBQY's offending involved the cultivation of 281 cannabis plants and trafficking of a quantity over 30 times the trafficable amount. While LBQY claimed his involvement was due to financial pressure and potentially affected by mental health issues, the sentencing judge found the conduct to be serious and motivated by financial gain. The Tribunal also considered LBQY's claims regarding potential persecution in Vietnam, including fears related to his alleged involvement with the Catholic Church and his status as a drug offender. However, previous decisions had identified inconsistencies in his evidence and found that he had not directly participated in protest action or engaged in activity attracting adverse political opinion. The Tribunal acknowledged that LBQY intended to lodge a further appeal against the refusal of his Protection Visa, and that his protection obligations might be engaged if legal avenues were not exhausted.

The Tribunal ultimately set aside the decision to refuse to revoke the mandatory cancellation of LBQY's visa and substituted a decision to revoke the cancellation. This outcome was based on the Tribunal's assessment that, in light of the ongoing appeal process concerning his Protection Visa, there was another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation.