RGYW and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration)

This matter concerned an application by RGYW to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa, which was initiated by the Minister for Home Affairs. The dispute centred on RGYW's extensive criminal history and his argument that provisions of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) imposed time limits on criminal deportations and excluded long-term residents. The case was heard by K Parker M.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether sections 200 and 201 of the Act imposed a 10-year limit on criminal deportations, thereby excluding long-term residents, and whether section 501 of the Act was intended to circumvent these limitations. RGYW contended that Parliament did not intend for section 501 to override the time limits for deportation, particularly for individuals who had spent most of their lives in Australia, arguing for the principle of absorption into the community after a significant period. He also referred to international practices in other European states that prohibited the deportation of non-citizens who arrived as children.

The Tribunal adopted the approach from *Daniele*, stating that while a conviction is the basis for deportation, the Tribunal could examine the circumstances surrounding the offence to assess its nature and gravity, but not to question the conviction's propriety. The Tribunal found that RGYW's argument regarding time limits and exclusion of long-term residents was not supported by the Act. It considered the expectations of the Australian community, noting that while RGYW argued his property offences should not lead to deportation given his long residency, the Tribunal disagreed. The Tribunal was satisfied that the community would expect RGYW's privilege to remain in Australia to be removed due to his approximately 60 convictions, many resulting in imprisonment, the significant costs to the community of his offending and incarceration, and the fact he had already been given multiple opportunities. The Tribunal also noted the psychologist's assessment of RGYW's rehabilitation prospects as "guarded" and that reoffending had occurred even after rehabilitation programs.

The Tribunal concluded that the Australian community would expect that RGYW, having had three chances already, should not be provided with any more. Consequently, the Tribunal did not revoke the mandatory cancellation of RGYW's visa.