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

This case concerned an appeal by a Fijian citizen, the applicant, against the mandatory cancellation of his visa following his failure to pass the character test. The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs was the respondent. The applicant had been living in Australia since 2011 and had established ties to the community, including a marriage to an Aboriginal Australian woman and employment. However, he had also committed several offences, including domestic violence, and had failed to disclose prior convictions. The primary dispute revolved around the applicant's character and the weight to be given to various "other considerations" in determining whether to revoke the visa cancellation.

The court was required to determine whether the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa should be revoked. This involved assessing the primary considerations, specifically the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct, and the best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision. The court also had to consider other relevant factors, such as the strength, nature, and duration of the applicant's ties to Australia, and the impact of his removal. The court was bound to reach its own conclusions on matters of fact, notwithstanding previous findings by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The court reasoned that while the applicant's domestic violence offences weighed against revocation, the specific circumstances of the offending, including the victim's conduct, meant that this primary consideration did not decisively weigh against the applicant. Regarding the best interests of minor children, the court noted the applicant's relationship with his three minor step-children since 2012. However, it also considered the separation caused by his incarceration and the potential negative impact of his past conduct as a parenting role model. The court ultimately found that the primary consideration of protecting the Australian community weighed in favour of non-revocation, but this was balanced against other factors. The court affirmed the decision to cancel the visa.