Sasulu and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration)

This matter concerned an application by Mr Sasulu, a New Zealand citizen of Samoan heritage, to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa. Mr Sasulu arrived in Australia at age 17 and had subsequently been convicted of criminal damage with intent to damage or destroy, and failing to answer bail. More significantly, he was involved in a violent incident outside a Melbourne nightclub in December 2014, where he punched and kicked two brothers, rendering one unconscious and causing serious facial injuries to the other. His visa was mandatorily cancelled on 14 February 2017, and this cancellation was not revoked following consideration of his submissions. The Tribunal was required to determine whether to revoke this mandatory cancellation.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the mandatory cancellation of Mr Sasulu's visa should be revoked, by considering the primary considerations outlined in Part C of the Direction. These considerations included the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct, the best interests of minor children in Australia, and the expectations of the Australian community. The Tribunal had to assess the nature and seriousness of Mr Sasulu's conduct, the risk of him reoffending, the impact on any minor children, and the broader community's expectations regarding non-citizens who commit serious offences.

The Tribunal reasoned that the protection of the Australian community weighed heavily against revocation due to the seriousness of the December 2014 offences and the inflicted harm, coupled with an unacceptable risk of reoffending and causing similar serious harm. While acknowledging Mr Sasulu's engagement in educational programs and efforts to de-escalate potential violence in prison, the Tribunal found a lack of independent assessment of his reoffending risk. Regarding the best interests of minor children, the Tribunal found this consideration weighed only slightly in favour of revocation, as Mr Sasulu had no children of his own and limited contact with his nieces and nephews. In relation to the expectations of the Australian community, the Tribunal noted that these expectations are assessed in light of the broader Australian community, not specific sub-communities, and that the community would expect individuals convicted of serious offences not to hold a visa.

The Tribunal concluded that the mandatory cancellation of Mr Sasulu's visa would not be revoked. The Tribunal found that the protection of the Australian community consideration weighed heavily in favour of non-revocation, and that the consideration of the best interests of minor children weighed only slightly in favour of revocation. The Tribunal also found that the expectations of the Australian community weighed against revocation.