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

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to refuse a Bridging E (Class WE) Visa, which was cancelled on the grounds that the applicant failed to pass the character test under section 501(6)(d)(i) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The applicant sought to have the delegate's decision set aside, arguing that he did not pose a risk of engaging in future criminal conduct in Australia. The proceedings were before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant passed the character test, specifically whether there was a risk that he would engage in criminal conduct in Australia if allowed to remain. This required an assessment of the evidence to determine if there was "more than a minimal or remote chance" of future criminal conduct, as guided by Direction No. 79. The Tribunal also considered the broader concept of protecting the Australian community, as articulated in *Tanielu v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection*, which extends beyond preventing physical violence or criminal acts to encompass other forms of harm.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the evidence presented by the applicant and his wife, which was found to be clear and consistent and was not successfully challenged. The wife's evidence indicated that the applicant had not been violent towards her and that a recent incident had stemmed from her own anxieties and anger management issues, which had since been addressed with psychological assistance. The Tribunal accepted that the applicant provided significant emotional and practical support to his wife and had not exhibited violent behaviour since the incident. Applying the principles from *Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wendy Susan Baker* and *Tanielu*, the Tribunal concluded that the evidence did not establish a sufficient risk of future criminal conduct.

Consequently, the Tribunal was of the opinion that the applicant posed minimal, if any, risk to the Australian community. The decision of the delegate was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Minister for reconsideration in accordance with section 65 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), with a direction that the applicant was not to be refused the visa under section 501(1) of that Act.