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

This matter concerned an application by the Applicant to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa. The cancellation was based on the Applicant having a substantial criminal record, which meant he failed the character test under section 501(6)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The Applicant sought revocation under section 501CA(4) of the Act, arguing there was another reason why the cancellation decision should be revoked.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether there was "any other reason" why the mandatory visa cancellation decision should be revoked, considering the criteria set out in Ministerial Direction No. 79. This involved assessing primary considerations such as the protection of the Australian community, the best interests of minor children, and the expectations of the Australian community, as well as other considerations including the strength, nature, and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia and the extent of impediments if removed.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal acknowledged the seriousness of the Applicant's criminal offending, particularly the convictions for sexual intercourse without consent, which weighed heavily against revoking the cancellation. However, the Tribunal also considered factors such as the Applicant's long period of residence in Australia since arriving at age 15, his stable employment history, his strong relationship with his partner and their three children, and evidence suggesting he was at a low risk of re-offending. The Tribunal found that the Applicant's offending behaviour did not constitute a normal pattern for him and that he had ceased drinking alcohol, which had been a contributing factor to past incidents.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had established "another reason" why the mandatory visa cancellation decision should be revoked. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the decision under review and substituted a new decision to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa.