RVJB v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

This matter concerned an application for a Protection Visa by RVJB, a Sudanese national, against a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs to refuse the visa. The central dispute revolved around whether RVJB, having been convicted of a particularly serious crime, posed a danger to the Australian community, as contemplated by section 36(1C) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The case was heard by Mr A Maryniak QC, a Member of the Tribunal.

The legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine, on reasonable grounds, whether RVJB constituted a danger to the Australian community, given his prior criminal convictions, including aggravated robbery. This assessment was to be made in accordance with section 36(1C) of the *Migration Act*, which requires that an applicant for a protection visa not be a person whom the Minister considers, on reasonable grounds, to be a danger to the Australian community after being convicted of a particularly serious crime. The Tribunal was required to apply the principles established in relevant case law, which clarified that the assessment of danger did not necessitate balancing it against potential harm to the applicant if returned to their country of origin, nor did it require proof of a probability of harm.

The Tribunal reasoned that while RVJB had indeed been convicted of a particularly serious crime, and his past offending, particularly around 2011-2014, involved violence and was influenced by alcohol and drugs, his circumstances had changed significantly since mid-2015. The Tribunal accepted that RVJB had matured, gained a greater appreciation for family and life in Australia, and had demonstrated an ability to avoid anti-social influences even while in immigration detention. This conclusion was supported by evidence of a supportive network of family and associates, a measured plan for his future, and positive maturation highlighted by expert evidence.

Consequently, the Tribunal was satisfied that RVJB was not a danger to the Australian community. The decision under review was set aside and remitted to the Respondent for reconsideration, with the direction that RVJB satisfied the criterion under section 36(1C) of the Act.