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

This matter concerned an appeal by a Croatian citizen against the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs' decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his Child visa. The Applicant had resided in Australia since 2006 and possessed an extensive criminal history between 2009 and 2022, including convictions for violence, weapons offences, dishonesty, breaches of conditional liberty, and drug possession. His visa was cancelled under section 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) due to having a substantial criminal record. The appeal was heard by A. Nikolic Am Csc SM of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether there was "another reason" why the mandatory visa cancellation decision should be revoked, as contemplated by section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act. This required the Tribunal to consider the Applicant's circumstances in light of Ministerial Direction No. 99, specifically the factors relevant to the protection of the Australian community and the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct. The Tribunal also had to determine if the Applicant passed the character test or if any other compelling circumstances warranted revocation.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the Applicant's extensive and persistent criminal history, which included violent and drug-related offences. Applying the principles outlined in Ministerial Direction No. 99, the Tribunal found that the Applicant's conduct was serious and posed a risk to the Australian community. The sentencing remarks from the Frankston Magistrates' Court highlighted the Applicant's long history of offending and the likelihood of continued incarceration if he did not address his drug issues. The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant had not demonstrated another reason to revoke the cancellation decision, finding that the protection of the Australian community outweighed any personal circumstances presented.

The Tribunal affirmed the reviewable decision, meaning the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa was upheld.