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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Nuuamoa against the mandatory cancellation of his Class CY Subclass 444 Special Category visa. The cancellation was based on Mr Nuuamoa having a substantial criminal record and failing the character test under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to consider whether there was another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation, applying Direction No. 90.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the conduct engaged in by Mr Nuuamoa constituted family violence, the impact of this conduct on his minor children, and the best interests of those children. The Tribunal also had to consider the expectations of the Australian community, the extent of impediments to Mr Nuuamoa's removal to New Zealand, the impact on victims, his links to the Australian community, and any other relevant matters.

The Tribunal considered Mr Nuuamoa's extensive criminal history, including convictions for assault, stealing a motor vehicle, and causing injury, often linked to intoxication. It noted that Mr Nuuamoa had previously attempted to strangle Ms ES, and his eldest daughter, L, had intervened and been pushed away by him. Furthermore, in another incident, Mr Nuuamoa had smashed a car window while his younger children, T and M, were present. Despite Ms ES's evidence that she believed Mr Nuuamoa would not harm the children now and that she would take them to visit him in New Zealand, the Tribunal found that Mr Nuuamoa had a history of breaching intervention orders designed to protect Ms ES and the children. The Tribunal was also influenced by Child Protection reports detailing concerns about family violence and substance abuse, and the fact that L had felt "upset and frightened at witnessing her father being violent."

The Tribunal affirmed the mandatory cancellation of Mr Nuuamoa's visa. It found that the primary consideration of protecting the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct weighed strongly against revoking the cancellation, particularly given the pattern of Mr Nuuamoa ignoring protective orders. While acknowledging the best interests of the minor children, the Tribunal concluded that the seriousness of the family violence and the risk of reoffending, despite Ms ES's current stance, precluded revocation.