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

This matter concerned an application by the Applicant to the Tribunal for the revocation of the mandatory cancellation of his Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa. The visa had been cancelled under section 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) because the Applicant did not pass the character test, having a substantial criminal record for affray. The Tribunal was required to consider whether there was "another reason" to revoke this mandatory cancellation.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the Applicant had established another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa, and if so, whether the factors for and against revocation weighed in favour of revoking the cancellation. In undertaking this assessment, the Tribunal was required to consider the considerations outlined in Ministerial Direction No. 79, including the protection of the Australian community, the best interests of minor children, and the expectations of the Australian community, as well as other considerations such as the strength, nature, and duration of ties to Australia and impediments to removal.

The Tribunal reasoned that the Applicant's extensive criminal history, characterised by violence and an increasing seriousness of offending, weighed heavily against revoking the cancellation. While acknowledging the Applicant's identification of intoxication as a cause for his offending and his stated remorse, the Tribunal found that he had made no serious or ongoing attempt to address this key cause, having discontinued treatment on multiple occasions. The Tribunal also noted that the Applicant's claims about his upbringing were contradicted by an assessment report. Despite considering the Applicant's ties to Australia, his relationship with his Australian citizen partner and their son, and the potential impact of his removal on them, the Tribunal concluded that these factors did not outweigh the risk to the Australian community.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa.