Rawiri and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to cancel the Applicant's visa under subsection 501CA(4) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The Applicant possessed a substantial criminal record and did not pass the character test. The central dispute before the Tribunal was whether there was another reason why the Applicant's visa should not be refused on character grounds, despite the mandatory cancellation.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the Applicant had established another reason why the mandatory cancellation of his visa should be revoked. This involved considering the Applicant's extensive criminal history, which included convictions for malicious wounding, multiple traffic offences, assault occasioning actual bodily harm (domestic violence), common assault (domestic violence), contravening a prohibition in an apprehended violence order (domestic violence), stalking and intimidating with intent to cause fear of physical harm (domestic violence), and resisting a police officer. The Tribunal also had to assess the risk to the Australian community and the nature of any family violence committed by the Applicant, in accordance with Direction No. 99.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal acknowledged the Applicant's extensive offending, particularly the serious nature of his violent conduct and multiple family violence offences. It noted that crimes of violence and acts of family violence are viewed very seriously under Direction No. 99. While the Applicant accepted responsibility for his offending and had undertaken some efforts towards rehabilitation, including completing a domestic violence program and receiving recommendations for ongoing treatment for substance use and mental health conditions, the Tribunal found that a medium risk of reoffending remained. This risk was considered a considerable risk to the Australian community. The Tribunal also found that the family violence committed by the Applicant weighed against the revocation of the visa cancellation.

The Tribunal concluded that, despite the Applicant's efforts at rehabilitation and the potential for future improvement with ongoing support and treatment, the primary considerations of protection of the Australian community and family violence committed by the Applicant weighed strongly in favour of not revoking the cancellation decision. Consequently, the reviewable decision was set aside and substituted with a decision to refuse to revoke the cancellation.