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

The applicant, Palu, sought judicial review of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs' decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his Class BF Transitional (permanent) visa. The applicant did not pass the character test due to his extensive criminal history. The core of the dispute was whether there was "another reason" to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision, considering Ministerial Direction No. 79.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant's circumstances presented any "other reason" that would justify the revocation of the mandatory visa cancellation. This involved a detailed assessment of the applicant's criminal history, the seriousness and nature of his offending, the risk he posed to the Australian community, and the application of the principles outlined in Ministerial Direction No. 79, particularly concerning the protection of the Australian community and the weight to be given to various factors.

The court reasoned that Australia has a sovereign right to determine who remains in the country and that a non-citizen who commits serious crimes, especially against vulnerable individuals, should generally forfeit the privilege of staying in Australia. The applicant's criminal record, spanning over 30 years and including offences such as assault and robbery with an offensive weapon, armed robbery, and fraud, was found to be significant. The court noted that the applicant had a history of dishonesty, including using aliases and lying to police. Applying Ministerial Direction No. 79, the court found that the nature and seriousness of the applicant's conduct, including violent crimes against his partner and dishonesty, weighed heavily against revocation. The risk to the Australian community was also considered a primary concern.

Ultimately, the court concluded that it could not exercise the discretion to revoke the cancellation of the applicant's visa. The decision under review, which affirmed the mandatory cancellation, was therefore affirmed.