LMSL and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate of the Minister's decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa. The applicant, a 38-year-old citizen of Iraq, had an extensive criminal record, including convictions for dishonesty offences, breaking and entering, drug offences, and assault. His visa was mandatorily cancelled under section 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) due to his substantial criminal record and serving a period of imprisonment. The applicant sought revocation of this cancellation under section 501CA(4) of the Act.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine two issues: first, whether the applicant passed the character test as defined in section 501 of the Act; and second, if he did not pass the character test, whether there was "another reason" why the decision to cancel his visa should be revoked. The applicant conceded that he did not pass the character test due to his substantial criminal record, which was based on convictions and sentences imposed on 11 March 2022, resulting in an aggregate term of imprisonment of 18 months with a non-parole period of 11 months.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed the character test as a matter of law. Consequently, the only remaining issue was whether there was another reason to revoke the visa cancellation. In considering this, the Tribunal applied Ministerial Direction 90, which outlines primary and other considerations. The Tribunal noted that while the applicant had strong ties to the Australian community, having arrived as a young man and lived there for many years, and presented evidence of potential impediments to removal, these considerations were not sufficient to outweigh the primary consideration of protecting the Australian community from serious criminal conduct. The Tribunal concluded that there was no "another reason" to revoke the decision to cancel the applicant's visa.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the delegate of the Minister not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa.