LHNC and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant, LHNC, against a decision by the Minister for Home Affairs to mandatorily cancel their visa. The appeal was heard by A Poljak SM. The dispute centred on whether the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa, based on character grounds, should be revoked.

The court was required to determine the weight to be given to three primary considerations under Direction 65: the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct, the best interests of minor children in Australia, and the expectations of the Australian community. Specifically, the court had to assess the nature and seriousness of the applicant's past conduct and the risk of future offending, as well as the community's expectations regarding non-citizens with criminal histories.

In reaching its decision, the court noted the applicant's extensive criminal history dating back to 2012, commencing at age 14. This history included convictions for serious offences such as "robbery armed with offensive weapon" and "robbery in company," where the applicant was an active participant in incidents involving violence against victims. The court also considered convictions for driving offences and property-related crimes, and the applicant's history of cycling in and out of juvenile detention. While acknowledging that some factors might favour revocation, the court found that the primary considerations of protecting the Australian community and the community's expectations weighed heavily against revocation.

Consequently, the court affirmed the decision to maintain the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa, finding that the principles and considerations favouring cancellation significantly outweighed any other factors.