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

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) considered the decision of a delegate of the Minister not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa. The applicant, a 47-year-old man who arrived in Australia as a child, had been declared a drug trafficker and therefore did not pass the character test under section 501(6) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The central dispute concerned whether there was another reason why the cancellation decision should be revoked, pursuant to section 501CA(4) of the Act, having regard to the considerations outlined in Direction No 79.

The Tribunal was required to determine two primary issues: first, whether the applicant passed the character test as defined by the *Migration Act*; and second, if he did not pass the character test, whether there was another reason to revoke the visa cancellation decision. This second issue necessitated a detailed consideration of the primary and other considerations set out in Direction No 79, which includes factors such as the nature and seriousness of the offending conduct, the risk to the Australian community, the best interests of minor children, community expectations, and the applicant's ties to Australia.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal found that the "nature and seriousness of the conduct" and the "risk to the Australian community" weighed against the revocation of the cancellation decision, with the former consideration weighing strongly and the latter slightly. Overall, the first primary consideration was found to weigh moderately against revocation. The Tribunal also considered the best interests of four minor children, including the applicant's stepdaughter, stepson, step granddaughter, and biological grandson, examining factors such as the nature of the relationship, the applicant's likely future parental role, the impact of his conduct on the children, and the effect of separation. The Tribunal noted that it found the applicant to be a frank and honest witness.

The provided text indicates that the Tribunal's decision was to set aside the delegate's decision and substitute it with its own. However, the specific outcome of that substitution, whether it was to revoke the cancellation or affirm the delegate's decision, is not fully detailed in the provided extract.