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

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs to refuse to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa. The Applicant, a citizen of New Zealand, had resided in Australia since she was six years old and had accumulated a substantial criminal record, including convictions for robbery, theft of a motor vehicle, and aggravated burglary, leading to multiple periods of imprisonment and community corrections orders. Her visa was mandatorily cancelled under section 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) due to her substantial criminal record and her serving a custodial sentence.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether there was another reason to revoke the visa cancellation, considering the primary and other considerations outlined in Direction 90. These included the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct, the best interests of minor children, and the expectations of the Australian community. The Tribunal also had to consider other relevant factors such as the Applicant's links to the Australian community and any non-refoulement obligations.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal affirmed 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. While acknowledging the Applicant's long ties to Australia, the Tribunal found that her extensive criminal offending, particularly given its nature and the fact that it commenced at a young age, weighed heavily against revocation. The Tribunal concluded that the protection of the Australian community and the expectations of the community regarding serious criminal conduct were paramount and that there was no other reason to exercise the discretion to revoke the mandatory cancellation. Consequently, the decision under review was affirmed.