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

This matter concerned an application by MWNX (the applicant) to review the mandatory cancellation of his Subclass XE Subclass 790 Safe Haven Enterprise visa. The visa was cancelled under section 501CA of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) because the applicant did not pass the character test due to having a substantial criminal record. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether there was "another reason" why the mandatory visa cancellation decision should be revoked, considering Ministerial Direction No. 90.

The Tribunal was tasked with assessing the primary considerations, including the protection of the Australian community, and other considerations, in determining if the mandatory cancellation should be revoked. This involved evaluating the nature and seriousness of the applicant's conduct to date, including his criminal history in Australia, which comprised numerous drug-related offences, offensive behaviour, wilful and obscene exposure, trespassing, and judicial breaches. The Tribunal also had to consider the risk to the Australian community should the applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal acknowledged the applicant's difficult past in Iran, including persecution as an Ahwazi Arab and his conversion to Christianity, which led to his flight to Australia and grant of a protection visa. However, it also noted his subsequent criminal conduct in Australia, his history of illicit substance abuse, and his diagnosis of drug-induced psychosis and chronic, recurrent psychotic disorder. The Tribunal considered the applicant's behaviour in immigration detention, including instances of aggression and non-compliance, and the contraband found in his shared room. Despite the applicant's personal circumstances and mental health challenges, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the character test, and therefore, section 501CA(4)(b)(i) could not be invoked to revoke the cancellation.

The Tribunal ultimately set aside the mandatory visa cancellation decision and substituted it with a decision to revoke the cancellation.