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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr. Pau against a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs to mandatorily cancel his visa. The dispute arose from Mr. Pau's criminal conduct, specifically aggravated break and enter, stalking, and threats to kill, which triggered the mandatory cancellation provisions of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The appeal was heard by Emeritus Professor P A Fairall, Senior Member, of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the mandatory cancellation of Mr. Pau's visa should be set aside and substituted with a decision to grant a visa, and how the various considerations outlined in Direction No. 90, including the protection of the Australian community, the nature and seriousness of the offending conduct, and the concept of family violence, should be weighed in this determination. The Tribunal was required to assess the applicant's criminal history, the risk to the community, and the impact of his conduct on his family, particularly in light of his links to the Australian community and any impediments to his relocation.

The Tribunal reasoned that while Mr. Pau's offending in 2020 was serious, it was out of character and did not reflect his conduct over the preceding thirty years, describing it as an "aberration" fuelled by alcohol and drugs. The Tribunal found that the primary consideration of protecting the Australian community weighed moderately against revocation. Regarding family violence, the Tribunal accepted that the applicant's former partner was a member of his family and that his threats to kill her were capable of satisfying the definition of family violence. However, the Tribunal noted a lack of evidence that the threat actually caused fear and that such threats might have been a feature of their arguments, making it difficult to assess the full impact and sinister nature of the conduct.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that Mr. Pau's offending was serious but out of character, and that the weight of the primary considerations, particularly the protection of the Australian community, weighed moderately against revocation. The Tribunal set aside the mandatory cancellation of Mr. Pau's visa and substituted it with a decision to grant a visa.