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

This matter concerned an application for judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) to affirm the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa. The applicant had failed to pass the character test due to criminal offending, which included multiple breaches of protection orders and family violence against multiple victims. The AAT had found that the applicant's risk of reoffending remained unchanged and that the factors against revoking the mandatory cancellation outweighed those in favour. Consequently, the AAT concluded there was no other reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the AAT had erred in law in its consideration of the applicant's case, particularly in relation to Ministerial Direction No. 99, which governs the revocation of mandatory visa cancellations. This involved determining whether the AAT had adequately assessed the applicant's claimed remorse, rehabilitation efforts, and any potential "other reasons" that might warrant revocation, such as the alleged impact of childhood trauma and mental health issues. The court also had to consider the weight given by the AAT to the applicant's criminal conduct and the risk of recidivism.

The court affirmed the AAT's decision, finding no error of law. The AAT had properly considered the evidence before it, including the applicant's admissions of offending, his expressions of remorse, and his participation in rehabilitation programs. However, the AAT also critically assessed the credibility of the applicant's claims, particularly regarding his alleged mental illness and fear of returning to Pakistan. The AAT found insufficient evidence to support the claims of mental illness, noting that a psychiatrist had assessed the applicant's symptoms as stress-related rather than indicative of mental illness. Furthermore, the AAT expressed scepticism regarding the applicant's claimed fear of returning to Pakistan, given his previous extended stay there for a wedding and the continued residence of his mother in that country. The AAT concluded that the factors weighing against revocation, including the seriousness and nature of the offending and the recidivist risk, were not outweighed by any factors favouring revocation.