Perese and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate's decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of Mr Perese's special category visa. Mr Perese, a New Zealand citizen, had his visa mandatorily cancelled under section 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) as he had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more and therefore did not pass the character test. The Tribunal was required to determine whether there was "another reason" why the cancellation decision should be revoked, pursuant to section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act.

The Tribunal's task involved an evaluative process, examining factors for and against revocation, in accordance with Direction No. 65 issued by the Minister under section 499 of the Act. The primary considerations under Direction 65 were the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct, the best interests of minor children in Australia, and the expectations of the Australian community. Other considerations, such as international non-refoulement obligations, ties to Australia, and the impact of removal, were also to be taken into account.

In applying these considerations, the Tribunal noted Mr Perese's extensive criminal history in Australia, commencing shortly after his arrival in 1985, which included numerous driving-related offences and convictions for common assault, assault officer in execution of duty, and resist officer in execution of duty. His most serious offence, "reckless grievous bodily harm," which led to the mandatory cancellation, involved a violent assault at a tavern resulting in significant injuries to the victim, including a skull fracture and brain bleeding, although the victim later recovered well. The Tribunal found that the primary considerations, particularly the protection of the Australian community, weighed heavily against revocation, given the nature and seriousness of Mr Perese's conduct and the risk of further offending.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the primary considerations in favour of non-revocation outweighed the secondary considerations. Therefore, the Tribunal found that there was not another reason why the visa cancellation decision should be revoked, and the delegate's decision was affirmed.