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

This matter concerned an application for review of the Minister's decision to affirm the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's Protection visa. The Applicant, who was born in Afghanistan, had arrived in Australia in 2009 and was granted a Protection visa. He did not pass the character test due to repeated violent offending and numerous traffic offences. The dispute centred on whether there was "another reason" to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision, as contemplated by the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The decision was made by Rebecca Bellamy SM in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the Applicant's circumstances constituted "another reason" to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his Protection visa, notwithstanding that he failed the character test. This involved considering the weight to be given to various primary and other considerations as outlined in Ministerial Direction No. 99. Specifically, the Tribunal had to assess the seriousness of the Applicant's offending, the risk to the Australian community, the Applicant's traumatic childhood experiences, his struggles with English and education, his history of drug use and schizophrenia, and his current living arrangements on a Bridging (Removal Pending) visa.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the Applicant had experienced significant trauma in his childhood and had demonstrated some capacity for rehabilitation since his release into the community on a Bridging visa, these factors were outweighed by the seriousness of his offending. The Applicant's repeated violent conduct, including an assault on a police officer, and numerous traffic infringements, were considered significant. The Tribunal found that the primary consideration of protecting the Australian community weighed heavily against revocation, and this was not sufficiently counterbalanced by considerations in the Applicant's favour.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that there was no "another reason" to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's Protection visa. The decision under review was affirmed.