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

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision concerning Mr. Palmer, a New Zealand citizen whose visa was mandatorily cancelled under section 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) due to his substantial criminal record. Mr. Palmer had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more. He subsequently made representations to have the cancellation revoked under section 501CA of the Act, but a delegate of the Minister refused to revoke the cancellation. Mr. Palmer then sought review of this refusal by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether there was "another reason" why the mandatory visa cancellation should be revoked, as contemplated by section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act. This required the Tribunal to consider Mr. Palmer's circumstances, including his criminal history, his personal circumstances, and the best interests of his minor children, in determining if the cancellation should be set aside. The Tribunal was required to stand in the shoes of the original decision-maker and consider the matter as at the time of its own review, giving genuine consideration to any substantial or significant claims made in Mr. Palmer's representations.

The Tribunal considered Mr. Palmer's criminal offending, which included drug trafficking and possession, for which he received a four-year prison sentence. It was acknowledged that Mr. Palmer did not pass the character test, and therefore, revocation could only be considered if there was "another reason." The Tribunal applied the principles established in *Bettencourt v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs* [2021] FCAFC 172, which require a genuine consideration of substantial claims made in representations. Despite Mr. Palmer's evidence regarding personal difficulties and his desire to better himself, and the consideration of his ties to Australia and his children's best interests, the Tribunal found that these factors did not constitute "another reason" to revoke the cancellation.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to revoke the cancellation of Mr. Palmer's visa.