Romanov and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration)

This matter concerned an application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of a delegate of the Minister's decision not to revoke a mandatory visa cancellation. The applicant, Mr. Romanov, held a Class BC Subclass 100 spouse visa and had his visa cancelled under s 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) due to having a substantial criminal record, specifically being sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more. The sole issue before the Tribunal was whether there was "another reason" under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act why the mandatory visa cancellation decision should be revoked.

The Tribunal was required to consider whether any mitigating or extenuating factors favoured the applicant and might outweigh the grounds for cancellation. This involved assessing the applicant's criminal history, including convictions for drug offences and offences committed while on bail, and considering the applicant's personal circumstances, his rehabilitation efforts, his intentions and future plans, and the best interests of his minor children. The Tribunal was also obliged to have regard to Ministerial Direction No. 65, which outlines considerations such as the protection of the Australian community, the best interests of minor children, and the expectations of the Australian community.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal noted the applicant's participation in self-improvement programs during his incarceration and his claims of remorse and a commitment to being a law-abiding citizen. However, it also considered the seriousness of his criminal conduct, particularly the drug trafficking offence for which he received a significant prison sentence. The Tribunal weighed these factors against the applicant's personal circumstances, including his Australian-born wife and two young sons, and his claims of difficulty if returned to Macedonia. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not demonstrated another reason why the mandatory visa cancellation decision should be revoked, concluding that the grounds for cancellation were not outweighed by any mitigating factors.

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