Scarlett and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of the Minister for Home Affairs' decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa. The applicant did not pass the character test due to his criminal conduct, which included drug possession and domestic violence offences. The core of the dispute was whether there was "another reason" to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision, as required by the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant's conduct to date, and the risk of future offending, warranted the revocation of the visa cancellation. This involved assessing the nature and seriousness of the applicant's past behaviour, including multiple drug offences and instances of violence against his former partner, and evaluating the risk he posed to the Australian community. A key legal issue was the weight to be given to the applicant's claims of remorse and rehabilitation in the absence of independent expert evidence.

The Tribunal considered Ministerial Direction No. 79, which mandates that decision-makers protect the Australian community from harm. While acknowledging the applicant's assertions of insight into his drug use and offending, and his claims of remorse and commitment to a drug-free and crime-free life, the Tribunal noted the lack of independent expert evidence to corroborate these claims. The Tribunal found that the available evidence, including reports from support services, was insufficient to establish that the applicant's psychological symptoms were being adequately managed or that the risk of re-offending was sufficiently mitigated. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that it could not exercise the discretion to revoke the cancellation of the applicant's visa.

The decision under review was affirmed.