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

The case of Peterson and the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs concerned the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa. The applicant, a New Zealand citizen who had resided in Australia since childhood, had his visa cancelled under section 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) following a conviction for causing grievous bodily harm and a sentence of three years and six months imprisonment. The applicant sought a review of the delegate's decision not to revoke this cancellation.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether there was "another reason" why the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa should be revoked, as contemplated by section 501CA(4) of the Act. This required the Tribunal to determine if the applicant passed the character test, and if not, to weigh the factors for and against revocation. The Tribunal was guided by Direction 79, which outlines considerations for visa cancellation decisions, including the protection of the Australian community from criminal conduct, the nature and seriousness of the conduct, and the risk of further offending.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not pass the character test due to his substantial criminal record, specifically the conviction for grievous bodily harm. Consequently, the focus shifted to whether there was another reason to revoke the cancellation. The Tribunal considered the primary consideration of protecting the Australian community, noting the seriousness of the applicant's conduct and the inherent risk to the community. While acknowledging factors that might weigh in favour of revocation, such as the applicant's ties to Australia and the best interests of his child, the Tribunal concluded that these were outweighed by the considerations against revocation, particularly the need to protect the Australian community.

Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision of 7 February 2020, which refused to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa. The Tribunal found that there was not another reason why the original decision to cancel the visa should be revoked.