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

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application by Mr. Miller for review of a delegate's decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa. Mr. Miller's visa was cancelled under section 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) because he did not pass the character test, having been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more. Mr. Miller sought revocation of this cancellation under section 501CA(4) of the Act, but this was refused by a delegate. The Tribunal's jurisdiction was initially challenged on the basis that Mr. Miller's application for review did not contain a statement of reasons within the prescribed time limit.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Mr. Miller had established "another reason" why the mandatory visa cancellation should be revoked, as required by section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the *Migration Act*. This required the Tribunal to consider Ministerial Direction No. 90, which outlines the factors to be taken into account when exercising this discretion. These factors include the nature and seriousness of the offending conduct, the risk of reoffending, the protection of the Australian community, the best interests of any minor children, the expectations of the Australian community, the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia, and impediments to removal.

The Tribunal found that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, rejecting the respondent's contention regarding the validity of the application. In considering the merits, the Tribunal noted Mr. Miller's extensive criminal history, including multiple convictions for assault, domestic violence offences, and driving offences, culminating in a sentence of imprisonment. While acknowledging evidence presented regarding Mr. Miller's ties to Australia, his employment history, and the best interests of his children, the Tribunal weighed these against the seriousness of his offending conduct, particularly the domestic violence offences and the risk posed to the Australian community. The Tribunal ultimately determined that the factors favouring revocation did not outweigh the public interest considerations, and therefore, the decision not to revoke the visa cancellation was affirmed.