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

This case concerned an application by a citizen of India for the revocation of a mandatory cancellation of his Bridging C visa. The applicant had arrived in Australia in 2013 and had remained in the country on various visas. His Bridging C visa was cancelled under s 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) after he failed to pass the character test due to a substantial criminal record, specifically a sentence of imprisonment of 12 months or more. The applicant sought revocation of this cancellation under s 501CA(4) of the Act.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether there was "another reason" why the decision to cancel the applicant's Bridging C visa should be revoked, as contemplated by s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act. This required a balancing exercise, considering factors for and against revocation, guided by Direction 99. The court had to weigh the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct against considerations such as the applicant's ties to Australia, the best interests of any minor children, and the legal consequences of the decision.

The court reasoned that the applicant's failure to pass the character test meant he could not rely on s 501CA(4)(b)(i) for revocation. In applying Direction 99, the court found that considerations favouring the protection of the Australian community, particularly in light of family violence, significantly outweighed factors in favour of revocation. The applicant's criminal conduct was viewed very seriously. While the applicant had ties to Australia and minor children, these considerations were found to weigh only marginally, or not at all, in favour of revocation. Furthermore, the court noted that even if the cancellation were revoked, the Bridging C visa had already expired, limiting the practical legal consequences of such a decision.

Ultimately, the court determined that the considerations against revoking the cancellation of the applicant's Bridging C visa significantly outweighed those in favour. The reviewable decision to affirm the refusal to revoke the cancellation was therefore affirmed.