LFFQ and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Bridging E (Class WE) visa by LFFQ, who did not pass the character test due to prior criminal offending. The dispute before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was whether the delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs should exercise the discretion to refuse the application, specifically considering whether the applicant had provided false or misleading information to the Department by failing to disclose prior criminal offending, including sexually based offences involving a child. The Tribunal was required to consider Ministerial Direction No. 110 in determining the application.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were primarily focused on the application of Primary Consideration 1 of Ministerial Direction No. 110, which mandates that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority. This required the Tribunal to assess the nature and seriousness of the applicant's conduct to date and the risk to the Australian community should the applicant commit further offences. The Tribunal also had to consider whether the applicant had provided false or misleading information to the Department, including by not disclosing prior criminal offending, and whether such offending was classified as an offence in Australia.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's sexually based offences involving a child were viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and community, regardless of the sentence imposed. It noted that the applicant had not engaged in psychological counselling despite scoring extremely severe for depression and anxiety, and that he had not shown remorse or insight into his offending or his long course of providing false information. The Tribunal found that there were almost no protective factors to prevent further offending, and any repeat of such conduct would be unacceptable and pose a serious risk of harm to the Australian community. This was compounded by the applicant's false declarations and applications, and his longstanding status as an unlawful non-citizen, demonstrating a disregard for Australia's immigration laws. Primary Consideration 2, concerning family violence, was not relevant as there was no evidence of such conduct.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision, concluding that the risk of the applicant repeating his conduct was unacceptable and weighed heavily against granting the visa.