Limu Tuiletufuga (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of Limu Tuiletufuga, a New Zealand citizen whose Subclass 444 (Special Category) visa was cancelled by the Minister. The dispute centred on whether the grounds for cancellation under section 116(1)(e)(i) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) were met, specifically whether the applicant's presence in Australia posed a risk to the health, safety, or good order of the Australian community.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant's presence in Australia constituted, or might constitute, a risk to the health, safety, or good order of the Australian community or a segment of it. This involved interpreting the meaning of "good order of the Australian community" in the context of the Act, and considering whether the applicant's circumstances presented a sufficient risk to engage the cancellation power. The Tribunal also had to decide whether, having found grounds for cancellation, it should exercise its discretion to affirm the Minister's decision to cancel the visa, taking into account all relevant circumstances.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal applied the principles established in *Gong v MIBP* [2016] FCCA 561, noting that a risk to the community does not require a direct, solid, or certain foundation but can arise from the possibility of past events. The Tribunal also referred to *Tien v MIMA* (1998) 89 FCR 80 for guidance on the interpretation of "good order of the Australian community," emphasising its public order element and connection to the disruption of law observance or societal values. The Tribunal considered evidence of criminal charges laid against the applicant involving indecent treatment of children between 2011 and 2018. Despite being provided with the opportunity to respond to this information and submit supporting evidence, the applicant failed to do so.

The Tribunal concluded that the ground for cancellation under s.116(1)(e)(i) was satisfied due to the serious nature of the charges. After considering the applicant's submissions regarding his family circumstances and the lack of any supporting evidence, the Tribunal exercised its discretion and affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's visa.