Sanchez and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)

This matter concerned an application by Mr Sanchez, a citizen of the Philippines, for review of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs' decision to refuse to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa. The visa had been mandatorily cancelled pursuant to section 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) due to Mr Sanchez possessing a substantial criminal record. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether to revoke this mandatory cancellation.

The Tribunal was tasked with considering several primary considerations as outlined in Direction 110. These included the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct, the commission of family violence by the non-citizen, the strength, nature, and duration of the non-citizen's ties to Australia, and crucially, the best interests of any minor children affected by the decision. The Tribunal had to weigh these considerations in determining whether to revoke the visa cancellation.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal acknowledged the seriousness of protecting the Australian community, noting that Mr Sanchez's offending, while not involving violence against women or children, still carried significant weight. However, the Tribunal found that Mr Sanchez had demonstrated remorse, the offending was opportunistic, his criminal history was limited, and he had gained insight into his substance abuse issues, leading to a low risk of reoffending. The Tribunal also considered Mr Sanchez's strong ties to Australia, having resided there since the age of nine, and his significant family links, including three minor children. The Tribunal found that the best interests of his children weighed in favour of revoking the cancellation, noting his commitment to maintaining a parental role.

Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the decision to refuse to revoke the mandatory cancellation of Mr Sanchez's visa. The Tribunal concluded that, on balance, the primary considerations, particularly the best interests of his children and his demonstrated efforts to address his past conduct, favoured the revocation of the cancellation.