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

This matter concerned an application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of a delegate of the Minister's decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of Mr Ripley's visa. The visa had been cancelled under subsection 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) because Mr Ripley did not pass the character test, having a substantial criminal record due to multiple sentences of imprisonment, including one of 24 months. The central issue for the Tribunal was whether there was "another reason" why the original visa cancellation decision should be revoked, as permitted by subsection 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act.

The Tribunal was required to determine if any countervailing factors were sufficiently compelling to justify revoking the visa cancellation, despite Mr Ripley not passing the character test. In making this determination, the Tribunal was bound to consider Ministerial Direction No. 90, which outlines primary and other considerations relevant to such decisions. These considerations include the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct, the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's conduct, the risk of future offending, and the extent of impediments to removal. The Tribunal also had to consider other factors such as international non-refoulement obligations, the impact on victims, and the applicant's links to the Australian community.

The Tribunal considered Mr Ripley's extensive criminal history, which commenced at age 17 and included offences such as assault occasioning actual bodily harm, possession of prohibited drugs, contravention of apprehended violence orders, and destruction of property, often involving domestic violence. The Tribunal also noted Mr Ripley's evidence that his offending was strongly linked to his use of methamphetamine, which he admitted to using on the day of the hearing. Despite concerns about procedural fairness due to his drug use, the Tribunal adjourned the hearing to allow Mr Ripley to present evidence sober. The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the seriousness of Mr Ripley's conduct and the need to protect the Australian community, while also acknowledging the need to consider other relevant factors as mandated by Direction 90.