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

The applicant, PDNF, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa. The applicant had failed the character test due to a criminal conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, for which he received a sentence of imprisonment. The dispute concerned whether there was "another reason" why the visa cancellation should be revoked, as required by the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The matter was heard by Deputy J W Constance P.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant's circumstances constituted "another reason" to revoke the visa cancellation, considering the factors outlined in Ministerial Direction No. 90. These factors included the nature and seriousness of the offending conduct, the risk of reoffending, the protection of the Australian community, the expectations of the Australian community, the strength, nature, and duration of the applicant's ties to Australia, and Australia's international non-refoulement obligations. A key issue was the prospect of indefinite detention for the applicant, given his inability to apply for a protection visa and potential impediments to removal to his country of origin.

The court reasoned that while the offending conduct was serious, the applicant had demonstrated contrition and had no prior convictions. The court accepted the applicant's evidence regarding his strong ties to Australia, his integration into the LGBTQI+ community, and the significant personal risks he would face if returned to Iran, which engaged Australia's non-refoulement obligations. Crucially, the court found that the prospect of indefinite detention, coupled with the impediments to removal, constituted "another reason" to revoke the cancellation. The court applied the principles established in cases such as *WKMZ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs*, which affirmed that the continued deprivation of liberty is a significant factor to be considered.

The reviewable decision was set aside, and in substitution, it was decided that the cancellation of the applicant's visa would be revoked.