Pele and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration)

This matter concerned the review of a decision by the Minister's delegate to refuse to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa. The Applicant, a New Zealand citizen, had resided primarily in Australia since 2006 and possessed an extensive criminal history in both Australia and New Zealand, including numerous convictions for serious offences, culminating in a significant period of imprisonment. The visa was cancelled under section 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) as the Applicant did not pass the character test and had served a full-time term of imprisonment.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the discretion conferred by section 501CA of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation should be exercised in the Applicant's favour. This required the Tribunal to consider the relevant considerations outlined in Direction No 65, particularly the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct, and the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct to date.

Senior Member Tavoularis reasoned that the Applicant's criminal history, which spanned from 1984 to 2017, demonstrated a pattern of serious offending. This included repeated breaches of domestic violence orders, possession of dangerous drugs, and offences against law enforcement officers. The Tribunal found that while violence was not the sole theme of the offending, it was a recurring element, rendering the Applicant's conduct "very serious" as contemplated by the Direction. The cumulative effect of repeated offending and the risk posed to the community were significant factors.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that there was no other reason why the mandatory cancellation decision should be revoked. Accordingly, the decision under review was affirmed.