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

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate's decision to refuse to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's Refugee (Class XB)(Subclass 200) visa. The applicant, LRMM, held this visa but it was cancelled under provisions of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) relating to a substantial criminal record. The applicant sought revocation of this cancellation, which was refused by the delegate. The applicant then sought review by the Tribunal, which quashed the delegate's decision and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. The Tribunal was required to determine whether there was another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation, considering Ministerial Direction No. 90.

The legal issues before the Tribunal included determining the applicant's country of citizenship, which was identified as Ethiopia. The Tribunal was required to assess the primary considerations outlined in Ministerial Direction No. 90, specifically: the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct; the best interests of minor children in Australia; the expectations of the Australian community; and international non-refoulement obligations. Additionally, the Tribunal had to consider the country of reference for the purpose of assessing impediments if removed, and the extent of those impediments.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal applied Ministerial Direction No. 90, focusing on the primary considerations. It found that LRMM had committed violent crimes, including common assault and robbery armed in company, with one victim being female. The Tribunal noted the seriousness of these offences, particularly the custodial sentence imposed for the robbery conviction. Regarding non-refoulement obligations, the Tribunal concluded that holding a refugee visa as a minor did not automatically mean such obligations were owed personally to LRMM, as there was no evidence of a personal assessment of his claims. The Tribunal also found that while the situation in Ethiopia varied, there was insufficient evidence to satisfy it that LRMM would face a risk of significant harm if deported to Addis Ababa, noting that relocation within Ethiopia could be a reasonable alternative. The Tribunal considered the extent of impediments LRMM might face in Ethiopia, acknowledging the artificiality of assessing this for someone who had never lived there and was entitled to citizenship but not yet a citizen. It noted LRMM was 21 years old, in good physical health, but had diagnoses of alcohol dependency, adjustment disorder, and potentially below-average intelligence.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review. It was not satisfied that LRMM would face a risk of significant harm if deported to Ethiopia, and it found that the extent of impediments to establishing himself in Ethiopia weighed neutrally. The Tribunal also noted that LRMM had no strong connections to Ethiopia, which would be a relevant impediment.