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

The applicant, a citizen of India, sought to have the mandatory cancellation of his Class SN Subclass 190 Skilled-Nominated (permanent) visa revoked. The cancellation was based on his failure to pass the character test due to sexual offending. The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs was the respondent. The matter was heard by A. Nikolic Am Csc SM.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether there was "another reason" why the mandatory visa cancellation should be revoked, and if so, whether that reason outweighed the grounds for cancellation. In considering this, the Tribunal was required to apply Ministerial Direction No. 90, which mandates consideration of factors such as the protection of the Australian community, the expectations of the Australian community, and the best interests of any minor child in Australia.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the best interests of the applicant's minor child in Australia were a significant consideration, they were outweighed by the need to protect the Australian community. The Tribunal found a low but real risk of recidivism, noting the applicant's sexual offending occurred within 18 months of his arrival in Australia and that he had spent a substantial portion of his time in Australia under conditional liberty, in prison, or in immigration detention. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's limited ties to Australia and the fact that any impediments to his return to India were not significant. The applicant's claims regarding potential harm from creditors in India were found to be unsubstantiated and repaid, and a new claim of potential harm from the public in India was not considered due to its late introduction and lack of evidence.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's visa, concluding that the protection and expectations of the Australian community substantially outweighed the best interests of the minor child and other relevant considerations.