LQFH and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)

The applicant, LQFH, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs to affirm the cancellation of their visa. The Minister's decision was made under s 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), which mandates visa cancellation if a person has a substantial criminal record and does not pass the character test, unless there is another reason to revoke the cancellation. The primary dispute concerned whether the applicant passed the character test, and if not, whether there were compelling reasons to revoke the cancellation despite the mandatory cancellation.

The Court was required to determine whether the delegate of the Minister had erred in finding that the applicant did not pass the character test, and consequently, whether the delegate had erred in refusing to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation. This involved assessing whether the delegate had properly considered all relevant factors, including the protection of the Australian community, the best interests of minor children, and other considerations such as the applicant's cooperation with police, the potential harm to the applicant if removed from Australia, and the applicant's ties to Australia.

The Presiding Member, M Griffin QC SM, affirmed the delegate's decision. The reasoning focused on the applicant's substantial criminal record, which led to the mandatory cancellation of the visa. The Court found that the delegate had adequately considered the factors presented as reasons for revocation, including the best interests of the applicant's children and the potential harm upon removal. However, these considerations were weighed against the serious nature of the criminal offending and the need to protect the Australian community. The Court concluded that the delegate's assessment that these factors did not constitute "another reason" to revoke the cancellation was open to the delegate on the evidence before them.