PHTP and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)

This case concerned an application by PHTP (the applicant) for the revocation of the mandatory cancellation of his Safe Haven Enterprise Visa. The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (the respondent) had decided not to revoke the cancellation. The applicant, a citizen of Afghanistan, had been granted the visa in 2017. His visa was mandatorily cancelled under s 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) after he was convicted of reckless wounding and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more, thus failing the character test. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal had previously set aside an earlier cancellation decision, but a subsequent conviction led to the current mandatory cancellation. The applicant sought revocation of this cancellation under s 501CA(4) of the Act.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether there was "another reason" why the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa should be revoked, as provided for in s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act. This required the court to undertake a weighing and balancing exercise, considering various factors outlined in Direction 99, including the protection of the Australian community, the strength, nature, and duration of the applicant's ties to Australia, and the best interests of any children affected by the decision. The court also had to consider the legal consequences of the visa cancellation itself.

The court reasoned that while the applicant had unresolved mental health issues, drug and alcohol addictions, and a medium-high risk of reoffending, which indicated a lack of support if released into the community, these factors weighed against revocation. The court noted that the legal consequences of "reinstating" an expired visa were limited. Crucially, the court found that the need to protect the Australian community and the expectations of the community weighed against revoking the cancellation. Although the legal consequences of the cancellation itself could be seen as weighing in favour of revocation, the court concluded that the considerations against revocation outweighed those in favour.

Consequently, the court affirmed the delegate's decision not to revoke the cancellation of the applicant's visa. The applicant's request for revocation was therefore dismissed.