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

This matter concerned an application by QFWW (the applicant) to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) following the mandatory cancellation of his visa by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. The applicant had been granted a Global Humanitarian visa in 2003. The Minister cancelled the applicant's visa under section 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) on the basis that he did not pass the character test due to having a substantial criminal record and serving a full-time sentence of imprisonment.

The Tribunal was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the applicant passed the character test. Secondly, if the applicant did not pass the character test, whether there was "another reason" why the mandatory visa cancellation decision should be revoked, as contemplated by section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act. This second issue involved considering various factors outlined in Ministerial Direction 90, including the nature and seriousness of the offending, the best interests of minor children, the expectations of the Australian community, and any international non-refoulement obligations.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not pass the character test, as he had been convicted of serious offences and sentenced to terms of imprisonment exceeding 12 months. The Tribunal then considered whether there was "another reason" to revoke the cancellation decision. It applied the principles from *Viane v The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection* [2018] FCAFC 116, which require a reason of sufficient weight or significance to satisfy the decision-maker that the cancellation should be revoked. The Tribunal considered the applicant's early life experiences in Sudan and Egypt, his relationships and employment in Australia, and the best interests of his minor children. It also noted that there was insufficient information to establish international non-refoulement obligations. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that there was indeed "another reason" to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation decision.

The Tribunal set aside the mandatory visa cancellation decision and substituted it with a decision to revoke the cancellation.