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

This case concerned an application for judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs to affirm the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's Child (Class AH) (Subclass 101) visa. The applicant, who was born in Fiji and had resided in Australia since 1999, possessed a lengthy criminal history commencing in 2001, encompassing approximately 55 offences. These offences broadly fell into categories including assault, property offences, break and enter, resisting police, affray, unlawful possession of weapons, and drug possession and supply. The Minister's decision to affirm the cancellation was based on the applicant failing to pass the character test due to his criminal conduct.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether there was "another reason" to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa, as contemplated by the relevant provisions of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and Ministerial Direction No. 79. This required the court to consider the appropriate weight to be given to both primary and other considerations, particularly in light of the applicant's violent offending and the potential impact on the protection of the Australian community. The court was also required to assess the seriousness of the applicant's conduct, including violent crimes against individuals and the cumulative effect of his repeated offending.

In reaching its decision, the court applied the principles outlined in Ministerial Direction No. 79, which mandates that decision-makers consider the protection of the Australian community as a primary consideration. The court found that the applicant's criminal conduct, particularly his violent offences, was serious and warranted significant weight. The court noted that crimes of a violent nature, especially against individuals, are viewed very seriously. While acknowledging the applicant's submissions regarding his upbringing and mental health, the court determined that these factors did not outweigh the seriousness of his offending and the imperative to protect the Australian community. The court found that the applicant had punched Ms B in the jaw, consistent with the findings of the sentencing Magistrate, and that this conduct was a serious matter.

Ultimately, the court concluded that it could not exercise the discretion to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa. The decision under review was therefore affirmed.