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

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) affirmed the decision to refuse to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa. The Applicant, a New Zealand citizen who had resided in Australia since infancy, sought revocation of the visa cancellation made under s 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) due to his substantial criminal record. The Applicant had a history of over 70 offences since the age of 13, including serious violent offences, theft, and breaches of bail, for which he had received custodial sentences.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether there was another reason to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation, considering the Applicant's representations and the relevant considerations outlined in Direction 90. This involved assessing whether the Applicant passed the character test, which required consideration of his past criminal conduct, the risk of future criminal conduct, and the expectations of the Australian community regarding the protection of its members from serious offending.

In reaching its decision, the Tribunal applied the principles that Australia has a sovereign right to determine who remains in the country and that non-citizens engaging in serious conduct should expect to forfeit their privilege to remain. The Tribunal weighed the Applicant's long-standing ties to Australia, his youth, and his participation in rehabilitation programs against the seriousness of his criminal offending and the community's expectations of safety. Despite acknowledging the Applicant's remorse and efforts at rehabilitation, the Tribunal found that the gravity of his criminal history, particularly the violent offences and the unprovoked assault, meant that the primary consideration of protecting the Australian community outweighed other considerations. The Tribunal concluded that there was no other reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation.