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

The case of MKBL and the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs concerned an application for revocation of a mandatory visa cancellation. The applicant, a citizen of the United Kingdom who had arrived in Australia as a child, had been convicted of sexual offences involving persons under 16 years of age. These convictions led to his visa being cancelled under section 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) as he was deemed not to pass the character test due to a substantial criminal record. The applicant sought to have this cancellation revoked under section 501CA(4) of the Act. The matter was heard by Deputy Boyle P.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant passed the character test, and if not, whether there was "another reason" why the mandatory visa cancellation should be revoked. This required the court to consider the provisions of section 501CA of the *Migration Act* and Ministerial Direction 90, which outlines the framework for assessing such applications. The court was tasked with determining if the applicant's circumstances, particularly in light of his long-term residence in Australia and the best interests of his minor children, constituted an "other reason" sufficient to outweigh the mandatory cancellation.

Deputy Boyle P reasoned that the applicant did not pass the character test, as he had been sentenced to terms of imprisonment totalling more than 12 months, thus satisfying the definition of a substantial criminal record under section 501(7)(c) of the Act. Consequently, the applicant could not rely on the provision allowing revocation if the person passes the character test. The court then considered whether there was "another reason" to revoke the cancellation, applying the principles in Ministerial Direction 90. While acknowledging the applicant's ties to Australia and the best interests of his children as relevant considerations, the court found that these factors did not outweigh the primary consideration of protecting the Australian community from criminal conduct, particularly given the nature of the sexual offences committed.

Ultimately, Deputy Boyle P concluded that there was no "another reason" to revoke the decision to cancel the applicant's visa. The court affirmed the reviewable decision, meaning the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa remained in effect.