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

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to affirm the mandatory cancellation of a Five Year Resident Return (Class BB) (Subclass 155) visa held by the applicant, a citizen of Fiji. The cancellation was based on the applicant failing to pass the character test due to a substantial criminal record. The central question before the Tribunal was whether there was "another reason" to revoke the cancellation decision, as contemplated by the relevant legislative provisions and Direction No. 79.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had established "another reason" to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation, considering the factors outlined in Direction No. 79. These factors included, but were not limited to, non-refoulement obligations, the strength and duration of ties to Australia, the impact on Australian business interests, the impact on victims of the applicant's criminal behaviour, and the extent of impediments the applicant might face if removed from Australia. The Tribunal also had to weigh these considerations against the seriousness of the applicant's offending and the risk of re-offending, as well as the expectations of the Australian community.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal considered evidence presented, including that of a witness whose credibility was found to be lacking due to inconsistencies and evasiveness. The Tribunal acknowledged the applicant's submissions regarding the interests of minor children, impediments to removal to Fiji, and ties to Australia, noting these as matters weighing in his favour. However, the Tribunal ultimately concluded that these favourable considerations were outweighed by the extreme seriousness of the applicant's past conduct, particularly in relation to violence against women, and the real risk of future offending. The expectations of the Australian community were also found to weigh strongly against revocation. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.