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

This matter concerned an appeal to the Federal Court of Australia concerning the mandatory cancellation of a Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa held by a New Zealand citizen. The applicant had failed the character test due to sexual offending involving a child. Following the cancellation, the applicant made representations to the Minister seeking revocation, which were declined. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed this non-revocation decision. Justice Hespe of the Federal Court had previously quashed the Tribunal's decision and remitted the matter for redetermination.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the discretion to revoke the visa cancellation was enlivened by the Tribunal's satisfaction that there was 'another reason' to do so. This required the Tribunal to make the "correct or preferable decision" based on the material before it, considering the principles established in cases such as *Bettencourt* and *Viane* regarding the determination of 'another reason'.

The court applied established principles for assessing 'another reason' in the context of visa cancellation revocation. These principles stipulate that a statutory obligation arises for the Minister to form a state of satisfaction by reference to the representations made. A failure to consider the representations as a whole would constitute a failure to consider a mandatory relevant consideration. While individual matters within the representations are not necessarily mandatory considerations, a decision formed without considering a substantial, significant, and clearly expressed claim for revocation would not satisfy the statutory requirements. The Tribunal must undertake a real and genuine consideration of each such claim. If the Tribunal forms the satisfaction that there is 'another reason' for revocation, the Minister must revoke the cancellation.