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

This matter concerned an application by the Applicant, a citizen of New Zealand who had resided in Australia since childhood, to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa. The Applicant did not pass the character test due to a substantial criminal record, including sentences totalling more than 12 months imprisonment. The central issue before the Tribunal was whether there was "another reason" to revoke the cancellation decision, as permitted by section 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

The Tribunal was required to determine if the Applicant's circumstances warranted the exercise of discretion to revoke the visa cancellation. This involved assessing the primary considerations outlined in Direction 79, specifically the protection of the Australian community from criminal or serious conduct, and weighing this against any considerations favouring revocation, such as the Applicant's ties to Australia and the best interests of any children involved. The Tribunal also had to consider the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct and the risk he posed to the community.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal found that the Applicant did not pass the character test due to his criminal record, which included convictions for offences such as assault and drug possession, and the imposition of sentences exceeding 12 months. The Tribunal considered the factors outlined in Direction 79 regarding the protection of the Australian community, including the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct and the risk of reoffending. While acknowledging the Applicant's long ties to Australia, the Tribunal concluded that the considerations weighing against revocation, particularly the protection of the Australian community, outweighed those favouring it.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa.