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

This matter concerned the review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, and Multicultural Affairs not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's Class BB Subclass 155 Five Year Resident Return visa. The Applicant, a citizen of the United Kingdom, had resided in Australia since 1997 and possessed a substantial criminal record, including convictions for unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, drug offences, and dishonesty offending. The Applicant's visa had been mandatorily cancelled under section 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) due to his failure to pass the character test, specifically because he had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether there was "another reason" to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation, as contemplated by section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act. This required the Tribunal to consider the Applicant's representations and determine if they disclosed a substantial or significant and clearly expressed claim for revocation, necessitating a real and genuine consideration of those claims. The Tribunal was tasked with assessing the Applicant's character, the risk to the Australian community, and the weight to be given to various factors presented in his representations, including his claimed rehabilitation efforts, family ties in Australia, and remorse for his past conduct.

The Tribunal found the Applicant's credibility to be questionable, noting inconsistencies and a lack of forthrightness in his evidence regarding his offending, drug use, and rehabilitation. It specifically highlighted that the Applicant had a history of reoffending after receiving formal warnings and that his claims about ceasing drug use were often contradicted by evidence. Applying Ministerial Direction No. 90, the Tribunal considered the seriousness of the Applicant's conduct, including violent and sexual crimes, and the risk posed to the community. Despite acknowledging the Applicant's family ties in Australia and his stated desire to change, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant had not demonstrated that he passed the character test, nor had he established "another reason" sufficient to warrant the revocation of the visa cancellation.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation.