LJTZ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

This matter concerned an application by LJTZ (the applicant) to review the mandatory cancellation of his visa by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. The applicant, who arrived in Australia in 2005 as a refugee at the age of 17, had experienced significant trauma in his native Burundi, including the murder of his father and siblings. He had struggled with English language proficiency and securing consistent employment since his arrival, relying on Centrelink benefits for support. The applicant had two children born in Australia in 2007 and 2012. The decision was made by N A Manetta SM in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa. This required the Tribunal to consider the "primary considerations" as outlined in the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), including the protection of the Australian community, the best interests of minor children, and the expectations of the Australian community. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's non-refoulement obligations. The Tribunal specifically noted that it would not attach weight to the Minister's non-compellable power under s 195A of the Act to grant a visa in the public interest, as there was no evidence of the Minister actively considering its exercise.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the protection of the Australian community is a paramount consideration, it must be balanced against other factors. The applicant's traumatic background, his limited English proficiency and consequent difficulties in obtaining stable employment, and his status as the father of two Australian-born children were significant mitigating factors. The Tribunal found that these factors, when weighed against the risk posed to the community, did not warrant the continued cancellation of his visa. The Tribunal also implicitly considered the best interests of the applicant's minor children by acknowledging their presence and the applicant's role as their father.

Ultimately, the Tribunal decided to set aside the decision under review and revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa.