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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Rascovici, a Romanian citizen, against the mandatory cancellation of his visa. Mr Rascovici arrived in Australia in 2006 and, despite having criminal convictions in Romania, was granted a visa. He was warned at that time about the consequences of failing to disclose criminal convictions in future applications. He subsequently acquired approximately 100 convictions in Australia between 2008 and 2019, including offences involving dishonesty, violence, and drug possession. His visa was cancelled under section 501 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) due to his failure to pass the character test. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine if there was "another reason" why the mandatory cancellation should be revoked.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Mr Rascovici had established "another reason" to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation, as contemplated by section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This required the Tribunal to consider whether any identified reasons carried sufficient weight or significance to warrant the revocation of the cancellation decision, beyond simply passing the character test. The Tribunal also had to assess the nature and seriousness of Mr Rascovici's criminal offending, the cumulative effect of his repeated offending, and whether he had re-offended after being warned by immigration authorities.

The Tribunal reasoned that Mr Rascovici did not pass the character test due to his extensive criminal history and the serious nature of his offending, which included violent acts against his wife and persistent dishonesty. The Tribunal found that his claims of rehabilitation were aspirational and unpersuasive, noting his failure to alter his behaviour despite previous opportunities, warnings, and increasingly severe sentences. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered his stated intention to reside with his wife, whom he had previously blamed for his addictions, and concluded that his post-release plans would likely return him to the circumstances that contributed to his past offending, rendering his risk of recidivism unacceptably high. The Tribunal also found his claims of playing a positive parental role unconvincing, given his past neglect and limited meaningful contact with his daughter. Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the seriousness and persistence of his criminal conduct, coupled with a lack of genuine rehabilitation, weighed heavily against revoking the visa cancellation.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel Mr Rascovici's visa, finding no "another reason" that would justify its revocation. The Tribunal concluded that the mandatory cancellation of his visa should stand.