Reid and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)

Case [2025] ARTA 127

Reid and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2025] ARTA 127 (24 February 2025)

Applicant/s:  Ricky Reid

Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Tribunal Number:                2024/10265

Tribunal:General Member Gallagher

Place:Perth

Date of Decision:                24 February 2025

Decision:The Reviewable Decision, being the decision of the Delegate dated 29 November 2024, to exercise the discretion not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s Special Category (Temporary) (Class TY) (Subclass 444) visa under section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) is affirmed.

..........[SGD]..............................................................

General Member

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – decision of delegate of Minister not to revoke mandatory cancellation of visa – character test – Direction no. 110 – primary and other considerations – protection of Australian community – nature and seriousness of criminal offending – risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct  – strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia – best interests of children – expectations of the Australian community – extent of impediments if removed – Applicant is a 39 year old citizen of New Zealand – extent of impediments if returned to New Zealand – Non-Revocation Decision is affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 15, 189, 196, 197C, 198, 499, 499(1), 499(2A), 500(1)(b), 500(6B), 501, 501(6), 501(6)(a), 501(7)(c), 501(3A), 501CA, 501CA(4), 501CA(4)(b)(i), 501CA(4)(b)(ii), 501E, 501F

CASES

AJL20 v Commonwealth of Australia [2020] FCA 1305

Bartlett and Minister for Immigration and Border Protections (Migration) [2017] AATA 1561

BHL19 v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2022] FCA 313

BSJ16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1181

Cargill and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2025] ARTA 50

CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 138

Dalzell and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2024] ARTA 17

FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs (2019) 272 FCR 454

Hambledon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 7

HZCP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2019) 273 FCR 121

Mayes and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] AATA 32

Minister for Home Affairs v HSKJ (2018) 266 FCR 591; [2018] FCAFC 217

QJYD and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] AATA 1

Re Harrison and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2009) 106 ALD 666

Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 594

VKTT and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] AATA 649

Wightman and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] AATA 1208

YNQY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1466

SECONDARY MATERIALS

Minister for Citizenship, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, Direction No 99: Visa Refusal and Cancellation under Section 501 and Revocation of a Mandatory Cancellation of a Visa under Section 501CA (23 January 2023)

Minister for Citizenship, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, Direction no. 110 — Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa…

Continue reading Reid and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs...

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Reid and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2025] ARTA 127
Case
[2025] ARTA 127
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved a 39-year-old New Zealand citizen, who was subject to a visa cancellation under the Migration Act. The applicant appealed the decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa. The applicant argued that he passed the character test and that there were other reasons why the cancellation decision should be revoked. The matter was heard by the Tribunal in Perth on 12 February 2025.

The central legal issues were whether the applicant passed the character test and if not, whether there were other reasons to revoke the cancellation decision. The Tribunal had to consider the character test, defined in s 501(6) of the Migration Act, which includes having a substantial criminal record, and the primary and other considerations set out in Direction no. 110.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not pass the character test, as he had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more. Given this finding, the Tribunal proceeded to consider whether there were other reasons to revoke the cancellation decision. The Tribunal examined the primary and other considerations set out in Direction no. 110, including the risk to the Australian community if the applicant were to commit further offences, the strength of his ties to Australia, and the best interests of his children. The Tribunal was not satisfied that these considerations justified revoking the cancellation decision.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the delegate not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant’s visa.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Making a revocation decision under s 501CA requires the decision-maker to first decide whether the person passes the character test under s 501CA(4)(b)(i) and, only if satisfied that the person does not, to then decide under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) if there is ‘another reason’ why the cancellation decision should be revoked.[21] [21] HZCP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2019) 273 FCR 121, 136 [66].THE HEARING AND THE EVIDENCE The hearing was held 12 February 2025 at the Tribunal’s Perth Registry. The Applicant was self-represented and appeared in-person. The Respondent was represented by Ms Alina Ali of Minter Ellison and appeared via video link. At the hearing, the Applicant gave evidence and was cross-examined. The Applicant’s son, Mr Isaiah Greeuw-Reid, gave evidence by telephone and was cross-examined. The following documents were marked as exhibits:(a)Statement of Horomona Moko Moko Marsh (the Applicant’s uncle), dated 24 January 2025, and filed 28 January 2025 (Exhibit A1);(b)Statement of Isaiah Greeuw-Reid (the Applicant’s son), undated, and filed 28 January 2025 (Exhibit A2);(c)Statement of Miss LR (the Applicant’s daughter), undated, and filed 29 January 2025 (Exhibit A3);(d)Applicant’s Violence Prevention Program Certificate, filed 29 January 2025 (Exhibit A4);(e)Applicant’s Statement of Attainment, filed 29 January 2025 (Exhibit A5);(f)Photo of graduation of the Violence Prevention Program, filed 29 January 2025 (Exhibit A6);(g)Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues, and Contentions, dated and filed 6 January 2025 (Exhibit R1);(h)Respondent’s section 501G Documents, comprising 142 pages, labelled G1-G17, and filed 16 December 2024 (Exhibit R2);(i)Respondent’s supplementary G-Documents, comprising 372 pages, labelled S1-S87, and filed 28 January 2025 (Exhibit R3); and(j)Respondent’s Supplementary Submissions, comprising 4 pages, dated and filed 4 February 2025 (Exhibit R4). The Tribunal has taken into account the letters of support from the Applicant’s son, daughter, and uncle,[22] as well as the oral evidence provided by the Applicant and his son.[22] See Exhibits A1, A2, and A3 respectively. At hearing, the Tribunal provided the opportunity for the parties to respond to matters put by the Member, directed at matters relevant to ‘Direction no. 110 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA’ (Direction no. 110), in their oral closing submissions. DOES THE APPLICANT PASS THE CHARACTER TEST? As noted above, the character test is defined in s 501(6) of the Migration Act. Section 501(6)(a) of the Migration Act provides that a person does not pass the character test if they have a ‘substantial criminal record’, as defined by s 501(7). Relevant to the Applicant’s case, a person has a ‘substantial criminal record’ if they have been ‘sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more’.[23] Failure to pass the character test arises as a matter of law.[24][23] Migration Act s 501(7)(c).[24] Re Harrison and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2009) 106 ALD 666, 685 [63].

Decision

Reasons for decision

On 26 November 2021, the Delegate cancelled the Applicant’s visa under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act on the basis that the Applicant had a substantial criminal record within the meaning of s 501(6)(a) and was serving a sentence of imprisonment on a full-time basis in a custodial institution, for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a state or territory (the Cancellation Decision).[13] The Applicant was notified by letter of the same date, which he received by hand delivery to Albany Regional Prison.[14][13] Exhibit R2, G13, p 87.[14] Exhibit R2, G13, p 87. On 20 December 2021, the Applicant made a request for revocation of the Cancellation Decision and made representations to the Delegate in support of his request for revocation of the Cancellation Decision under s 501CA of the Migration Act.[15][15] Exhibit R2, G14, p 94. On 29 November 2024, the Delegate found that they were not satisfied that there was ‘another reason’ to revoke the Cancellation Decision, therefore the power under s 501CA(4) was not enlivened and the Delegate made the Reviewable Decision.[16] The Applicant was notified of the Reviewable Decision by letter dated 2 December 2024 which he received by hand delivery at Yongah Hill Immigration Detention Centre.[17] [16] Exhibit R2, G4, p 24.[17] Exhibit R2, G3, p 15. On 9 December 2024, the Applicant lodged an application for review in the Tribunal, for review of the Reviewable Decision.[18] [18] Exhibit R2, G2, p 4. The Applicant is currently detained at Yongah Hill Immigration Detention Centre. ISSUES The issues before the Tribunal are:(a)whether the Applicant passes the character test, as defined by s 501(6) of the Migration Act; and(b)if the Applicant does not pass the character test, whether the Tribunal is satisfied that there is another reason why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked.[19]LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK[19] See Migration Act s 501CA(4).Migration Act The Migration Act provides special powers for the Minister to refuse or cancel visas on character grounds. In some circumstances, where a visa is cancelled on character grounds, the Minister can revoke that cancellation decision. These powers generally involve consideration of whether a person passes the character test, and if they do not, consideration of whether there is another reason that the decision to cancel or refuse a visa should be revoked. The character test is set out in s 501(6) of the Migration Act and provides that a person does not pass the character test if the circumstances listed in that subsection apply. Section 501(6)(a) of the Migration Act relevantly provides that:(6)For the purposes of this section, a person does not pass the character test if:(a)the person has a substantial criminal record (as defined by subsection (7)); …(Original emphasis.) A ‘substantial criminal record’ is relevantly defined by s 501(7)(c) of the Migration Act as follows:(7)For the purposes of the character test, a person has a substantial criminal record if: …(c)the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more; …(Original emphasis.)

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant passes the character test.[25][25] Migration Act s 501CA(4)(b)(i).CONSIDERATION OF REVOCATION As the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant passes the character test, the Tribunal must then determine whether, having regard to the primary and other considerations contained within Direction no. 110, there is ‘another reason’ why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked. The statutory power to revoke will only be enlivened if there is ‘another reason’ why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked.[26][26] Migration Act s 501CA(4)(b)(ii). The Tribunal is required to form a state of satisfaction as to whether there is ‘another reason’ why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked, reasonably, and on a correct understanding of the law. By reason of s 499(2A) of the Migration Act, in doing so, the Tribunal must comply with written directions about the performance of its functions or the exercise of those powers which are given by the Minister pursuant to s 499(1) of the Migration Act.Direction no. 110 On 7 June 2024, the Minister made Direction no. 110 under s 499 of the Migration Act, which commenced operation on 21 June 2024. This Direction replaced the previous Direction No. 99.[27][27] Direction no. 110 paras 2 to 3. An objective of Direction no. 110 is to guide decision-makers in exercising powers under ss 501 or 501CA of the Migration Act.[28] In exercising the power under s 501CA(4), the Tribunal must have regard to the primary and other considerations set out in Direction [28] Direction no. 110 para 5.1(4). [29] Direction no. 110 para 6. no. 110 where relevant to the decision.[29] Paragraph 5.1 of Direction no. 110 sets out ‘[o]bjectives’, including para 5.1(3) which provides that: Under subsection 501(3A) of the Act, the decision-maker must cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if the decision-maker is satisfied that the person does not pass the character test because of the operation of paragraph (6)(a) (on the basis of paragraph (7)(a), (b) or (c) or paragraph (6)(e)) and the non-citizen is serving a sentence of imprisonment, on a full­time basis in a custodial institution, for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory. A non-citizen who has had their visa cancelled under section 501(3A) may request revocation of that decision under section 501CA of the Act. Where the decision-maker considering the request is not satisfied that the non-citizen passes the character test, the decision-maker must consider whether there is another reason to revoke the cancellation given the specific circumstances of the case. Paragraph 5.2 of Direction no. 110 sets out ‘[p]rinciples’ which must be taken into account by decision-makers under ss 501 and 501CA of the Migration Act. These principles ‘provide the framework within which decision-makers should approach their task of deciding whether to … revoke a mandatory cancellation under section 501CA’ and are expressed as follows: 1Australia has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia. Being able to come to or remain in Australia is a privilege Australia confers on non­ citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law-abiding, will respect important institutions, such as Australia's law enforcement framework, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.2The safety of the Australian Community is the highest priority of the Australian Government. 3Non-citizens who engage or have engaged in criminal or other serious conduct should expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the privilege of staying in, Australia.4The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they engaged in conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, that raises serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measureable [sic] risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.5Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, or by other non-citizens who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only for a short period of time.6With respect to decisions to refuse, cancel, and revoke cancellation of a visa, Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age. 7Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the non­ citizen's conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation. 8The inherent nature of certain conduct such as family violence is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation, even if the information available at the time of consideration suggests that the non-citizen does not pose a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.