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

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision not to revoke a mandatory visa cancellation made by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. The applicant, QQDT, sought to have the cancellation of his visa revoked, arguing that he passed the character test or that there was another reason for the cancellation to be revoked. The review was heard by Linda Kirk SM.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant passed the character test, and if not, whether there was another reason for the mandatory visa cancellation decision to be revoked. In considering the latter, the Tribunal was required to assess various factors, including the best interests of minor children, the strength, nature, and duration of the applicant's ties to Australia, and the extent of impediments if he were removed from Australia.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's history, including his early life in Australia, his parents' separation, his father's violence, his expulsion from school, and his return to Sydney where he began using drugs and alcohol. His criminal history, which included offences such as putting teenage boys in fear and robbery in company involving significant violence, was examined. The Tribunal also noted his drug use while in custody, although he later provided negative drug test results. Assessments of his risk of reoffending indicated a medium to high risk. The Tribunal found that the applicant could not rely on the character test ground for revocation.

The Tribunal then considered whether there was "another reason" to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation. This involved assessing the primary consideration of protecting the Australian community from harm. The Tribunal viewed the applicant's violent offences, particularly those against vulnerable individuals, very seriously. The nature and seriousness of his conduct, including a violent robbery where the victim sustained serious injuries, were significant factors. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant could not rely on the ground that there was another reason for the decision to be revoked.