NWXQ and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration)

This matter concerned an application by NWXQ (the Applicant) to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) for review of a decision by the Minister for Home Affairs (the Respondent) to cancel the Applicant's visa under section 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The cancellation was based on the Applicant failing to pass the character test due to having a substantial criminal record. The Applicant sought to have the mandatory cancellation decision revoked.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether there was another reason why the decision to cancel the Applicant's visa should be revoked. This involved weighing various considerations, including the protection of the Australian community, the best interests of the Applicant's minor children, international non-refoulement obligations, the strength, nature, and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia, the impact on victims of his offending, and the extent of impediments to his removal from Australia.

The Tribunal considered the Applicant's disadvantaged background, including his father's death at a young age, his mother's need to work, and his struggles with supervision and control. It also noted his history of drug and alcohol abuse, his significant criminal record which included violent offences, and his periods of incarceration and suspended sentences. However, the Tribunal also took into account the Applicant's efforts to address his drug addiction, including his successful participation in the Drug Court program, and the fact that he had no offences between mid-2008 and 2012. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered the impact of cancellation on his two minor sons, who are Australian citizens, and the fact that he had limited capacity to read and write, which might impede his ability to reintegrate in New Zealand.

Ultimately, the Tribunal was satisfied that the considerations favouring the revocation of the mandatory cancellation decision outweighed those against it. The Tribunal found that there was another reason why the original decision should be revoked and therefore set aside the decision to cancel the Applicant's visa, substituting it with a decision to revoke the mandatory cancellation.