Ngatupuna 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 refuse to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa. The applicant had failed to pass the character test due to an extensive history of criminal convictions, including violent offences. The applicant sought to have the visa cancellation revoked, arguing there was another reason why it should be.

The core legal issue before the Tribunal was whether there was "another reason" why the mandatory visa cancellation should be revoked, as contemplated by section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This required the Tribunal to consider the principles and considerations outlined in Ministerial Direction No. 90, specifically regarding the protection of the Australian community from criminal or serious conduct, the nature and seriousness of the offending conduct, the risk of reoffending, and the strength, nature, and duration of the applicant's ties to Australia.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's extensive criminal history, which included violent crimes such as assault, threatening to kill, and resisting police, demonstrated a serious disregard for the law and posed a significant risk to the Australian community. Despite the applicant's assertions of being a changed person and his limited ties to Australia, the Tribunal found that the seriousness of his offending conduct, particularly the violent nature of the offences and the repeated warnings he had received, outweighed any countervailing considerations. The Tribunal noted that Australia has a low tolerance for criminal conduct by non-citizens and that the expectation of the Australian community is that such individuals will not be permitted to remain in the country.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the original decision to cancel the applicant's visa, finding that there was no other reason why the cancellation should be revoked.