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

This matter concerned an application by PJJT (the Applicant) to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa. The cancellation was based on the Applicant failing to pass the character test due to having a substantial criminal record. The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (the Minister) was the respondent. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether there was another reason why the original decision to cancel the visa should be revoked.

The Tribunal was required to consider the Applicant's eligibility for revocation of the visa cancellation under section 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). In doing so, the Tribunal was bound to comply with Ministerial Direction No. 90, which sets out the principles and considerations for such decisions. The core legal issue was whether the Applicant had demonstrated "another reason" that warranted the revocation of the visa cancellation, taking into account the primary consideration of protecting the Australian community and other relevant factors outlined in the Direction.

The Tribunal reasoned that the Applicant's criminal history, which commenced in 2004 and was largely connected to alcohol abuse, demonstrated a chronic pattern of offending and a disregard for the law. The Tribunal noted that the Applicant had engaged in family violence, which is considered very serious conduct under Ministerial Direction No. 90. While acknowledging the Applicant's efforts towards rehabilitation, including one year of sobriety and participation in various counselling programs, the Tribunal found that these mitigating factors were insufficient to outweigh the primary consideration of protecting the Australian community. The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant's conduct was of such a nature that even strong countervailing considerations were not enough to justify revoking the visa cancellation.

The Tribunal affirmed the original decision to cancel the Applicant's visa.