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

The case of *Pillay and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)* concerned an application to review the non-revocation of a mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa. The applicant did not pass the character test, and the central dispute revolved around whether there was another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision, considering Ministerial Direction No. 99. The decision was made by R Maguire M.

The legal issues before the court were whether the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa should be revoked, and in doing so, how the provisions of Ministerial Direction No. 99, particularly concerning the best interests of minor children and the applicant's ties to Australia, should be applied. The court was required to assess the weight to be given to various factors, including the applicant's personal history, his offending behaviour, his family and social links in Australia, and the potential impact of his removal on his children.

The court considered the evidence presented, including oral testimony from the applicant and a forensic psychologist, Dr Gavan Palk. The applicant acknowledged not passing the character test and detailed a troubled upbringing marked by domestic violence, which he believed contributed to his difficulties in controlling his behaviour. Dr Palk's evidence highlighted the applicant's poor resilience and the significant stress caused by separation from his daughter, noting that his current partner's involvement as a co-offender diminished her status as a protective factor. The Tribunal found that while the applicant had family and social links in Australia, and that his removal would significantly impact his children, these factors weighed in favour of revocation. The court noted that the applicant did not spend his formative years in Australia and commenced offending relatively soon after his arrival, diminishing the weight given to the length of his residency. The Tribunal concluded that the impact on the applicant's children, while a primary consideration, weighed heavily in favour of revoking the mandatory cancellation.