Marson (Hanley) and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review by Mr Marson, a United Kingdom citizen, of the Minister's decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa. Mr Marson's visa was cancelled under section 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) due to his substantial criminal record, stemming from convictions for domestic violence and assaulting a police officer, for which he received concurrent sentences of 12 months' imprisonment. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was tasked with determining whether there was "another reason" why the mandatory cancellation should be revoked, as required by section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act.

The Tribunal was required to consider whether Mr Marson passed the character test and, if not, whether there was another reason to revoke the visa cancellation. In assessing whether another reason existed, the Tribunal was bound to comply with Ministerial Direction No. 99. This Direction outlines various considerations, including Australia's sovereign right to determine who remains in the country, the expectation that non-citizens will be law-abiding, and the community's expectation that those who engage in serious conduct will forfeit their privilege to remain. The Direction also specifies that a higher level of tolerance for criminal conduct may be afforded to non-citizens who have lived in Australia for most of their lives or from a very young age, with tolerance increasing with the length of time spent in the community.

The Tribunal found that Mr Marson did not pass the character test. In applying Direction No. 99, the Tribunal weighed the factors presented by Mr Marson against the seriousness of his offending conduct. The Tribunal noted that Mr Marson had limited ties to Australia and that his offending, particularly the serious assault on a police officer and contraventions of domestic violence orders, weighed heavily against revocation. Despite considering Mr Marson's representations, the Tribunal concluded that the factors in favour of revocation were outweighed by those against it, and therefore, there was not another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation.