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

This matter concerned an application by Mr. Muhumud, a citizen of Somalia, for review of the mandatory cancellation of his visa under section 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The applicant's substantial criminal record was not in dispute. The central question before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was whether there was "another reason" to revoke the mandatory cancellation, having regard to Ministerial Direction No. 90.

The Tribunal was required to consider a range of primary considerations outlined in Direction No. 90, including the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct, the best interests of minor children in Australia, the expectations of the Australian community, international non-refoulement obligations, the extent of impediments if removed, the impact on victims, and the applicant's links to the Australian community. Specifically, the Tribunal had to assess whether the applicant's conduct constituted family violence and the weight to be given to the best interests of his nieces and nephews.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the applicant's convictions for rape and assault with intent to rape were serious, the specific provision in the Direction regarding victims with intellectual disabilities was not enlivened as the applicant was unaware of the victim's disability at the time of the offences. However, the Tribunal noted the applicant's extensive history of convictions and breaches of domestic violence orders, which weighed against revoking the cancellation. Regarding the best interests of minor children, the Tribunal was satisfied that it would be in their interests for the visa to be restored, but this consideration was lessened by the applicant not playing a parental role and having had periods of absence. The Tribunal also considered the expectations of the Australian community, interpreting this as the "deemed" expectations of the executive government as articulated in the Direction, rather than a personal assessment by the decision-maker.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's visa.