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

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs to affirm the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's Class XB Subclass 202 Global Special Humanitarian visa. The Applicant did not pass the character test, and the central issue was whether there was "another reason" to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision, as contemplated by the relevant legislative provisions and Ministerial Direction No. 90.

The court was required to determine whether, in light of the Applicant's extensive criminal history, including violent offending and a consistent pattern of alcohol abuse, there were sufficient countervailing factors to warrant the revocation of the visa cancellation. This involved a detailed assessment of the Applicant's links to the Australian community and the weight to be given to various primary and other considerations as outlined in Ministerial Direction No. 90. The Applicant disputed much of the evidence against him, including findings of guilt for various offences and the accuracy of records from police and corrective services.

The Tribunal considered the Applicant's lengthy criminal history, which included a consistent pattern of alcohol abuse and aggressive behaviour, and found that the Applicant had not discharged the onus of proof to persuade the Tribunal that the findings of guilt were incorrect or that the essential facts underpinning those findings were not correct. While the Applicant claimed that much of the material in the records was untrue and that certain officers were biased, the Tribunal found this evidence unconvincing and unsupported. The Tribunal applied Ministerial Direction No. 90, noting that primary considerations weighed heavily against revoking the cancellation, and that the Applicant's links to the Australian community weighed moderately in favour of revocation. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the considerations favouring revocation did not outweigh those against it, and therefore, there was no other reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa.

The decision under review was affirmed.