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

This matter concerned an application for judicial review of a decision to refuse to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's Five Year Resident Return (Class BB)(Subclass 155) visa. The Applicant did not pass the character test due to his criminal conduct. The central dispute was whether there was "another reason" to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision, as required by the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) s 501CA(4)(b)(ii). The case was heard by Rebecca Bellamy M in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Applicant's circumstances constituted "another reason" to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa, and if so, what weight should be given to those considerations. This involved an assessment of the primary considerations, particularly the protection of the Australian community, and the "other considerations" as outlined in Ministerial Direction No. 79. The court was required to determine if any of these "other considerations" were of sufficient weight to warrant revocation, even if they were not strictly "primary" considerations.

The court reasoned that while the Applicant's conduct, including drug addiction and possession of drugs for a commercial purpose, was serious and engaged the primary consideration of protecting the Australian community, there were significant "other considerations" that warranted revocation. These included the Applicant's long-standing ties to Australia, his Australian citizen wife and children, his employment history, and his efforts towards rehabilitation. The court applied the principles from *Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection*, emphasizing that "other considerations" are not necessarily secondary and can be afforded the greatest weight if the circumstances warrant it. The court found that the Applicant's personal circumstances and rehabilitation efforts constituted "another reason" to revoke the cancellation.

The court ordered that the decision under review be set aside and substituted with a decision to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa.