NVDC and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration)

This matter concerned an application by NVDC, a 50-year-old Algerian national, to review a decision by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to cancel his visa. NVDC had been in Australia since 1997 and was in a de facto relationship with an Australian citizen, with whom he had a 17-year-old daughter. He had been employed for a period but had been unable to work since 2001 due to a back injury, after which he commenced using drugs and engaging in criminal activity. His criminal history, primarily involving property offences, spanned approximately 16 years and included serious convictions for aggravated burglary and assault with a weapon. The Minister cancelled NVDC's visa under section 501 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) due to his substantial criminal record and imprisonment. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether there was another reason why the Minister's decision should be revoked.

The Tribunal was tasked with assessing whether NVDC passed the character test, specifically considering his substantial criminal record as defined by section 501(7) of the Act. Furthermore, the Tribunal had to consider the primary considerations outlined in Part C of the relevant Direction, which included the protection of the Australian community from criminal or serious conduct, the best interests of minor children in Australia, and the expectations of the Australian community. In assessing the protection of the Australian community, the Tribunal was directed to consider the nature and seriousness of NVDC's conduct to date, including the frequency and cumulative effect of his offending, and the risk to the community should he commit further offences.

The Tribunal affirmed the Minister's decision to cancel NVDC's visa. It found that NVDC possessed a substantial criminal record, satisfying the criteria under section 501(7)(c) and (d) of the Act, as he had been sentenced to terms of imprisonment totalling one year or more. In considering whether there was another reason to revoke the cancellation decision, the Tribunal applied the principles set out in the Direction. It found that the protection of the Australian community was a paramount consideration, particularly given the seriousness and recency of NVDC's offending, including crimes against vulnerable individuals. The Tribunal also considered the best interests of NVDC's daughter and the expectations of the Australian community. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that these considerations did not outweigh the need to protect the Australian community from NVDC's criminal conduct.