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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Rowe against a decision of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to affirm the mandatory cancellation of his visa. Mr Rowe, a citizen of the United Kingdom, had his visa cancelled under section 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) due to failing the character test, stemming from his conviction for threats to distribute intimate images and contravention of a domestic violence order, for which he received a sentence of 12 months imprisonment. The delegate of the Minister subsequently decided not to revoke this cancellation.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine two primary issues. Firstly, whether Mr Rowe failed to pass the character test as defined by the Act. Secondly, if he did fail the character test, whether there was "another reason" why the mandatory visa cancellation decision should be revoked, as contemplated by section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act. In considering the second issue, the Tribunal was obliged to apply Ministerial Direction 99, which outlines various primary and additional considerations relevant to such a decision.

The Tribunal reasoned that Mr Rowe did indeed fail the character test due to his substantial criminal record, specifically the 12-month sentence imposed for his offending. In assessing whether there was "another reason" to revoke the cancellation, the Tribunal weighed several considerations. It found that the protection of the Australian community from criminal conduct and the fact that his conduct constituted family violence weighed heavily in favour of affirming the cancellation. While Mr Rowe's ties to Australia and the best interests of minor children carried some weight in favour of revocation, these were outweighed by the significant weight given to community expectations and the seriousness of his criminal conduct.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the cumulative effect of the considerations, particularly the paramount importance of community safety and the nature of his offending, did not provide a sufficient basis to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation. Therefore, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to revoke the cancellation.