LPGJ and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration)

This proceeding concerned an application for review of a decision by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa. The applicant accepted that he failed the character test due to having served multiple terms of imprisonment exceeding 12 months, thereby triggering the mandatory cancellation provisions under section 501(6)(a) and 501(7)(c) of the Migration Act 1958. The central issue before the Tribunal was whether there was any other reason, within the meaning of section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act, why the mandatory cancellation should be revoked.

The applicant contended that he had made substantial inroads towards rehabilitation, citing his abstinence from drugs, insight into his past actions, strong family support network, and intention to seek employment. The Tribunal was required to consider these submissions in light of the applicant's criminal history, which included serious offences such as armed robbery, and the Ministerial Direction No. 65, which outlines primary considerations for revocation requests. These primary considerations include the protection of the Australian community, the best interests of minor children, and the expectations of the Australian community.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal examined the nature and seriousness of the applicant's conduct, referencing multiple sentencing remarks from various courts that described his offences as serious. While acknowledging that some judicial comments referred to the applicant's difficult personal circumstances and mental health, the Tribunal noted that even in those instances, the gravity of the offences, such as an attack on a young boy, was recognised. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's history of reoffending and the potential risk to the community, particularly in light of his evidence that he was not currently taking any prescription medication. The Tribunal ultimately found that the applicant's conduct was serious and that the risk to the Australian community was a significant factor. The delegate's decision not to revoke the visa cancellation was affirmed.