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

This matter concerned an application for judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) which affirmed the mandatory cancellation of RZMW's visa. RZMW, a citizen of Liberia, arrived in Australia in 2004 as a refugee and subsequently accumulated numerous criminal convictions between 2007 and 2018, including offences of dangerous driving, failure to stop, wilful damage, common assault, assault occasioning bodily harm, and contravening a domestic violence order. His visa was mandatorily cancelled in February 2017 following a conviction for wilful damage and breach of parole. A subsequent decision not to revoke this cancellation was affirmed by the AAT in December 2018. The Federal Court had previously quashed the AAT's decision, leading to the present proceedings.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether there was "another reason" why the mandatory cancellation of RZMW's visa should be revoked, pursuant to section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This required the Tribunal to determine if any identified reason carried sufficient weight or significance to satisfy the decision-maker that the cancellation should be revoked, as elaborated in *Viane v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection*. The Tribunal was also required to consider the factors set out in Clause 13.1.1(1) of the relevant Direction, which guide the assessment of the nature and seriousness of a non-citizen's criminal offending and other conduct.

The Tribunal reasoned that RZMW did not pass the character test due to his criminal history, which included serious offences involving violence, repeated breaches of judicial orders, and dangerous driving. It noted that his offending spanned most of his time in Australia, with alcohol abuse identified as a significant and unresolved issue, and that he had re-offended after receiving a formal warning. The Tribunal found RZMW's assertion of never being violent towards women to be implausible, indicating a lack of insight and remorse. While acknowledging potential adverse emotional effects on his family in Australia and impediments to establishing himself in Liberia, the Tribunal found these factors, along with speculative rehabilitative claims, insufficient to outweigh the serious risk of harm from RZMW's re-offending. The Tribunal concluded that the best interests of his youngest biological child, youngest step-daughter, and youngest sister, and the potential for a closer relationship in the future, were considerations for revocation, but this was contingent on RZMW making meaningful changes.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the mandatory cancellation of RZMW's visa. It found that the combined effects of sections 501(6)(a) and 501(7)(c)-(d) of the Act meant RZMW did not pass the character test. The Tribunal determined that the deemed community expectation was that his visa should remain cancelled, given the seriousness of his offending and the potential risk of harm. The Tribunal did not accept his uncorroborated rehabilitative claims or that protective factors would be more effective in the future. The potential risk of harm was deemed too serious to be acceptable.