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

This matter concerned an appeal by the Applicant against the refusal of his visa application by the Delegate under section 501(1) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The Delegate had determined that the Applicant did not pass the character test due to a risk of engaging in criminal conduct, as outlined in section 501(6)(d)(i) of the Act. This led to the cancellation of his bridging visa and his subsequent immigration detention. The Applicant sought review of this decision, arguing that he did pass the character test and, alternatively, that the discretion to refuse the visa should not be exercised.

The Tribunal was required to determine two primary issues: first, whether the Applicant failed the character test under section 501(6)(d)(i) of the *Migration Act*, and second, if he did not pass the character test, whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion under section 501(1) to refuse the visa. The Applicant contended there was no risk of further criminal conduct, while the Respondent argued that the Applicant's past actions indicated a real risk of future offending and that the balance of considerations under Direction No. 79 favoured refusal.

The Tribunal considered the Applicant's evidence regarding his offending, including his explanation for purchasing suspicious items and his claims of remorse and a desire to focus on his studies and employment. While acknowledging the Applicant's positive work ethic and focus on studies, the Tribunal placed less weight on employer references as evidence of good character, noting they did not indicate knowledge of his criminal history. Ultimately, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the Applicant passed the character test and found that the risk to the Australian community outweighed any countervailing considerations. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the Delegate's decision to refuse the Applicant's visa application.