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

This matter concerned an application for review of a mandatory visa cancellation decision made under section 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The applicant, SFPH, did not dispute that he failed to pass the character test. The sole issue before the Tribunal was whether there was "another reason" to revoke the cancellation under section 501CA(4) of the Act, with the Tribunal considering the principles outlined in Direction No. 99.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant's circumstances constituted an "another reason" to revoke the visa cancellation. This involved weighing various factors, including the protection of the Australian community, the applicant's links to the Australian community, and the best interests of any minor children in Australia. The Tribunal also considered the expectations of the Australian community and the legal consequences of its decision, including any impediments to removal.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal gave significant weight to the applicant's serious criminal history, which included frequent offending, violence against women, and sexual offences against a minor, noting that this conduct continued until his incarceration in 2018. While acknowledging the applicant's claims of being a "changed man" and his engagement with rehabilitation programs and mental health treatment, the Tribunal found that his offending demonstrated a general disrespect for authority. The Tribunal also considered the best interests of a minor child, JD, but found that the applicant had no established relationship with the child and little prospect of forming one, particularly given the circumstances of the child's conception and the applicant's failure to disclose relevant information. However, the Tribunal did give weight to the applicant's close relationship with his nieces and nephews, who relied on him for support.

The Tribunal ultimately affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's visa. Despite acknowledging some mitigating factors, the Tribunal concluded that the seriousness of the applicant's criminal conduct and the limited prospects of a meaningful relationship with a minor child meant that there was no "another reason" to revoke the mandatory cancellation.