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

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, and Multicultural Affairs not to revoke a visa cancellation. The applicant, a Russian citizen who had resided in Australia since 1995 and was granted Australian citizenship in 1998, had his citizenship revoked in 2007 following numerous criminal convictions. Subsequently, his visa was cancelled in 2020. The applicant contended that the visa cancellation was unlawful and therefore the subsequent non-revocation decision was invalid.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were the validity of the visa cancellation under section 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and whether the applicant passed the character test. Specifically, the applicant argued that the cancellation was invalid because it was purportedly based on sentences imposed after his citizenship was revoked, and that the 2003 conviction for armed robbery, which occurred when he was an Australian citizen, could not be used to assess his character for the purposes of visa cancellation. He also contended that the provisions of section 501(3A)(a) and (b) should not be read disjunctively.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's extensive criminal history, which included convictions for violence, dishonesty, and drug offences spanning over two decades. It noted that the applicant had previously been issued a formal warning in 2011 regarding potential visa cancellation if he committed further offences. The Tribunal found that the applicant had been sentenced to terms of imprisonment of 12 months or more on two occasions, including the 2003 armed robbery conviction, which engaged the mandatory cancellation provisions of section 501(3A) of the Act. The Tribunal rejected the applicant's arguments regarding the timing of the sentences and the relevance of his prior citizenship, concluding that the cancellation decision was validly made. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to revoke the cancellation.