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

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to affirm the non-revocation of a mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's Class TU Subclass 500 Student visa. The Applicant did not pass the character test due to a sentence of imprisonment exceeding twelve months. The central issue was whether there was another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision, requiring consideration of Ministerial Direction No 90. The Applicant had numerous domestic violence convictions, common assault, and drug-related offending.

The court was required to determine whether the Applicant had established "another reason" under section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) why the mandatory cancellation of his visa should be revoked. This involved assessing the weight to be given to various considerations, particularly in light of Ministerial Direction No 90, which provides a framework for decision-makers when considering such applications. The court had to balance the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct against any mitigating factors presented by the Applicant.

The court's reasoning focused on the application of Ministerial Direction No 90, specifically Primary Consideration 1 concerning the protection of the Australian community. The Tribunal considered the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct, including his domestic violence convictions and other offending. While acknowledging the Applicant's engagement with psychological assessments and his fiancé's testimony, the Tribunal noted that evidence regarding the Applicant's counselling and self-reporting of certain offending was not fully substantiated or was based on limited information. The Tribunal also considered the potential for "double counting" when assessing domestic violence-related conduct under different provisions of the Direction. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had not demonstrated "another reason" to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision, and therefore affirmed the original decision.