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

This matter concerned an application by RTTW (the Applicant) to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa, which had been cancelled due to his failure to pass the character test. The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (the Respondent) opposed the revocation. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) was required to determine whether there was another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision, having regard to Ministerial Direction No. 90.

The Tribunal was tasked with assessing various considerations under Ministerial Direction No. 90, including the protection of the Australian community from criminal or serious conduct, whether the conduct involved family violence, the best interests of minor children, and the expectations of the Australian community. Additionally, other considerations such as international non-refoulement obligations, impediments to removal, impact on victims, and links to the Australian community were to be taken into account. The Applicant presented arguments relating to his remorse, rehabilitation efforts, immaturity at the time of offending, family support, and employment prospects.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal weighed the primary and other considerations. It found that Primary Consideration 1 (protection of the Australian community) and Primary Consideration 4 (expectations of the Australian community) weighed strongly in favour of non-revocation. Primary Consideration 2 (family violence) also carried strong weight in favour of non-revocation, while Primary Consideration 3 (best interests of minor children) weighed moderately in favour of revocation. The Tribunal concluded that the combined weight of the relevant other considerations, even when added to Primary Consideration 3, did not outweigh the significant weight attributed to Primary Considerations 1, 2, and 4. Consequently, a holistic view favoured the non-revocation of the visa cancellation.

Therefore, the Tribunal affirmed the decision made by the delegate of the Respondent not to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant's visa.