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

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate of the Minister's decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa. The applicant, who arrived in Australia as an infant, had a substantial criminal record comprising approximately 70 offences dating back to 2005, including drug offences, stealing, criminal damage, and breaches of restraining orders. The visa was cancelled under section 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) due to the applicant's substantial criminal record and imprisonment. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was asked to determine whether the applicant passed the character test and, if not, whether there was another reason to revoke the cancellation decision.

The Tribunal was required to consider the primary and other considerations outlined in Direction No 90, including the protection of the Australian community, the nature and seriousness of the criminal offending, the risk of future offending, community expectations, and the strength, nature, and duration of the applicant's ties to Australia. The applicant submitted evidence of his long-term residence in Australia since infancy, his schooling, employment history, and family ties, including his mother and sister residing in Australia, with his sister being an Australian citizen. The Tribunal also considered submissions regarding unresolved trauma within the applicant's family stemming from an assault on his mother in New Zealand and the suicide of his brother.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to revoke the visa cancellation. While acknowledging the applicant's ties to Australia and the difficult family circumstances, the Tribunal placed significant weight on the applicant's extensive and serious criminal history, which demonstrated a pattern of offending over many years. The Tribunal concluded that the risk to the Australian community posed by the applicant's continued presence outweighed the mitigating factors presented. Consequently, the Tribunal decided that the correct and preferable decision was to affirm the decision under review.