RLXN and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate's decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's Partner (Class BC) (subclass 100) visa. The applicant's visa was mandatorily cancelled under section 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) because he had a substantial criminal record, having been convicted of attempted armed robbery and sentenced to three years and nine months imprisonment. The applicant sought revocation of the cancellation, arguing that there was another reason why it should be revoked, specifically considering the interests of his family members and his level of rehabilitation.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether it was satisfied that the applicant passed the character test or that there was another reason why the visa cancellation decision should be revoked. In conducting this review, the Tribunal was bound to consider the matters set out in Direction 90, which categorises considerations into primary and other considerations. Primary considerations include the protection of the Australian community, whether conduct constituted family violence, the best interests of minor children in Australia, and the expectations of the Australian community. Other considerations include international non-refoulement obligations, impediments to removal, impact on victims, and links to the Australian community.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to revoke the visa cancellation. While acknowledging the applicant's submissions regarding his daughters' best interests, his low risk of re-offending, his ties to Australia, the impact on Australian business interests, and impediments to his removal to Lebanon, the Tribunal was not satisfied that these factors constituted another reason for revocation. The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the primary consideration of protecting the Australian community from criminal conduct, giving it significant weight in its assessment. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated a sufficient basis for revoking the mandatory visa cancellation.