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

The applicant, Pinto Amante, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs to affirm the mandatory cancellation of his visa. The visa was cancelled under section 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) because the applicant failed to pass the character test due to having a substantial criminal record. The decision under review was made by a delegate of the Minister, following the mandatory cancellation.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the delegate had erred in the exercise of their discretion under section 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) by failing to give sufficient weight to certain considerations, or by giving undue weight to others, when assessing whether to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation. Specifically, the Court considered the application of Ministerial Direction No. 90, which outlines the non-revocation factors and primary considerations, including the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct, the nature of the harm caused by the applicant's offending (which included intentionally damaging property by fire, domestic violence, and breaches of apprehended violence orders), the risk of future re-offending, and the best interests of minor children.

The Court examined the delegate's assessment of these considerations. It was noted that the delegate had acknowledged the seriousness of the offending, including the domestic violence and property damage, and had considered the risk of future re-offending. The delegate also considered the best interests of the minor children, but found that this consideration did not outweigh the need to protect the Australian community. The Court found that the delegate had properly applied the principles in Ministerial Direction No. 90, correctly identifying the primary considerations and weighing them appropriately in the context of the applicant's criminal history and the need for community safety. The delegate's reasoning demonstrated a rational and logical assessment of the relevant factors.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.