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

The applicant, Ms. Mao, a Chinese-born citizen of New Zealand, sought review of the Minister's decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of her Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa. This cancellation was based on her failure to pass the character test due to fraudulent offending against Australian banks, resulting in a substantial criminal record. The matter came before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for review of the non-revocation decision.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether there was "another reason" to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation, as contemplated by the relevant provisions of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). In considering this, the Tribunal was required to apply Ministerial Direction No. 99, which sets out the non-revocation criteria and the matters to be taken into account when assessing whether another reason exists to allow a visa to remain in effect. The Tribunal also had to determine the applicant's request for a private hearing and the imposition of a confidentiality order, balancing her concerns about media impact on her children against the general presumption of public hearings in Tribunal proceedings.

The Tribunal reasoned that the presumption of open hearings, adopted in the interests of transparency and public accountability, was not displaced by the applicant's concerns. It applied the principles established in *Negri v Secretary, Department of Social Services* regarding the elaboration of oral reasons in written decisions, and the reasoning of Emerita Professor Robin Creyke AO concerning the discretion to suppress names or order confidentiality, which requires cogent reasons beyond mere embarrassment or inconvenience. The Tribunal ultimately declined the request for a private hearing and a confidentiality order, finding that the applicant had not demonstrated circumstances that justified departing from the default position of public proceedings. The Tribunal affirmed the non-revocation decision.