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

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa. The applicant, NSPX, sought to have the cancellation revoked, arguing that there were "other reasons" to do so under section 501CA(4) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case, with Emeritus Professor P A Fairall, Senior Member, presiding.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the cumulative effect of factors favouring revocation constituted "another reason" to set aside the mandatory visa cancellation, as contemplated by section 501CA(4) of the *Migration Act*. This required the Tribunal to weigh various considerations, including those outlined in Ministerial Direction No. 99, against the mandatory grounds for cancellation, which were based on the applicant's substantial criminal record.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the applicant's extensive criminal history, which included multiple convictions for domestic violence offences resulting in imprisonment. These offences involved assaults on his wife, de facto partner, girlfriend, and family members, including pregnant women and his parents-in-law. The Tribunal found that these convictions strongly weighed against revocation under the primary considerations of protecting the Australian community, family violence, and the expectations of the Australian community. While acknowledging that some considerations, such as ties to Australia and the best interests of minor children, and potential impediments to removal, might favour revocation, the Tribunal found that the applicant's lack of meaningful contact with his children since 2019 significantly diminished the weight of those considerations. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that no factor or combination of factors presented was sufficient to counter the combined effect of the three primary considerations weighing against revocation.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa.