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

This matter concerned an application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for the non-revocation of a mandatory visa cancellation. The applicant, RWHZ, a citizen of Croatia, had failed to pass the character test due to a substantial criminal record. The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs was the respondent. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the discretion to refuse to grant the visa should be exercised, considering Ministerial Direction No. 90.

The central legal issue was whether there was "another reason" to revoke the mandatory cancellation of RWHZ's visa, as contemplated by section 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This required the Tribunal to assess various considerations outlined in Ministerial Direction No. 90, including the protection of the Australian community, whether the conduct involved family violence, the best interests of minor children, and the expectations of the Australian community, as well as other considerations such as international non-refoulement obligations and the applicant's links to Australia.

The Tribunal applied the principles of Ministerial Direction No. 90, acknowledging Australia's sovereign right to determine who remains in the country and its low tolerance for criminal conduct. In its assessment, the Tribunal found that the primary consideration of protecting the Australian community from criminal conduct carried very heavy weight against revocation, and the expectation of the Australian community also carried very heavy weight against revocation. The consideration of family violence weighed moderately against revocation, while the best interests of minor children weighed only slightly in favour of revocation. The Tribunal concluded that the combined weight of the other considerations, including international obligations and links to the Australian community, did not outweigh the significant weight against revocation.

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