QSVS and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration)

The applicant, QSVS, sought review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to cancel his Protection (Class XA) visa under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The applicant, born in Nigeria in 1974, arrived in Australia in 2009 and was granted a Protection visa in 2010. Crucially, he failed to disclose a 2005 conviction in the United Kingdom for trafficking cocaine, for which he served two years imprisonment and was deported to Nigeria. He later travelled to Nigeria and upon re-entry to Australia in 2012, again failed to declare his prior conviction. In 2014, the applicant was convicted in Queensland for attempting to possess a marketable quantity of methamphetamine and sentenced to five years imprisonment. His visa was mandatorily cancelled in 2016.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the decision to cancel the applicant's visa was the correct and preferable one, considering the applicant's criminal history, the protection of the Australian community, the best interests of his minor children, and other relevant considerations, including Australia's international treaty obligations. The Tribunal was required to assess the extent of any impediments the applicant might face if returned to Nigeria, particularly in light of an International Treaties Obligation Assessment (ITOA) which concluded that Australia did not owe non-refoulement obligations to the applicant.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had obtained his visa through false information regarding both his refugee claims and his criminal history. It noted that since his arrival in Australia, the applicant had not demonstrated himself to be a desirable citizen, instead engaging in further serious criminal activity. While acknowledging that it would be preferable for his children and wife to have his presence in Australia, the Tribunal concluded that his conduct disentitled him from remaining in the country. Applying these considerations, the Tribunal affirmed the Minister's decision to cancel the visa, finding it to be the correct and preferable outcome.