Mahu and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by a New Zealand citizen, the applicant, against the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection's decision to refuse to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa. The applicant possessed a substantial criminal record, and the Minister's delegate had determined that the primary considerations weighed against revoking the cancellation. The case was heard by Deputy S Boyle P.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the delegate had erred in their assessment of the primary considerations under Part C of Direction 65 when determining whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa. Specifically, the court was required to consider the weight to be given to the protection of the Australian community from criminal conduct, the best interests of minor children in Australia, and the expectations of the Australian community, as well as other relevant considerations.

The court's reasoning focused on the application of Direction 65, particularly paragraphs 13 and 14. It examined the nature and seriousness of the applicant's criminal conduct, including assaults and possession of methylamphetamine with intent to sell or supply, noting the sentences imposed and the cumulative effect of his offending. The court also considered the risk of reoffending and the best interests of the applicant's minor children. Ultimately, the court found that, having regard to all the primary and other relevant considerations, the correct and preferable decision was to revoke the cancellation of the applicant's visa.

The decision under review was set aside and substituted with a decision that the cancellation of the applicant's visa pursuant to section 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) be revoked.