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

This matter concerned an application for the revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa. The applicant, who arrived in Australia in 2015, had been convicted of sexually based offences involving a child, specifically accessing child abuse material using a carriage service, and a serious assault. The core dispute revolved around whether the discretion to revoke the visa cancellation under section 501CA(4) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) should be exercised, with the decision-maker required to consider Ministerial Direction No. 99.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant passed the character test, which was not disputed, and crucially, whether there was "another reason" why the original decision to cancel the visa should be revoked. In determining this, the Tribunal was bound to consider the principles and considerations outlined in Ministerial Direction No. 99, particularly concerning the protection of the Australian community and the weight to be given to various factors, including the nature and seriousness of the applicant's conduct.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's conduct, involving serious sexual offences against a child and a violent assault, was of significant gravity. It noted that the applicant's conviction for accessing child abuse material represented only a fraction of his admitted offending over several years, and his explanation for this behaviour was found unconvincing by the sentencing judge. The Tribunal applied the principles in Ministerial Direction No. 99, which prioritises the protection of the Australian community and states that certain conduct, such as sexual crimes against children, is viewed very seriously. While acknowledging the applicant's troubled personal history and mental health issues, the Tribunal found that these factors were insufficient to outweigh the seriousness of his criminal conduct and the imperative to protect the community.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not present "another reason" that would justify revoking the cancellation, finding that the gravity of his offending conduct was too significant to be overridden by countervailing considerations.