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

This matter concerned an application by the Applicant, Mr Siale, for review of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, and Multicultural Affairs' decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa. The cancellation was triggered by the Applicant failing to pass the character test due to criminal convictions. The Applicant sought to have the mandatory cancellation revoked, arguing there was another reason to do so.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether there was another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa, considering the principles outlined in Ministerial Direction No. 90. This involved assessing the primary consideration of protecting the Australian community from harm, as well as any other relevant considerations. The Tribunal had to give appropriate weight to both primary and other considerations, as articulated in cases such as *Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection*.

The Tribunal considered the Applicant's criminal offending, which involved robbery in company and armed robbery, for which he received a five-year prison sentence. The sentencing judge noted the objective seriousness of the offences, the victims' fear, and the Applicant's role in the joint criminal enterprise, which included intimidating behaviour and directing the actions of others. However, the Tribunal also took into account the Applicant's evidence regarding the circumstances of his offending, including his intoxication and emotional distress following a relationship breakdown. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted the Applicant's compliance with bail conditions, his efforts to find self-strength and reflection during that period, and his expressed intention to reside with his father in Brisbane if released. The Tribunal found that these factors, when weighed against the primary consideration of community protection, constituted another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation.

Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the delegate's decision of 6 May 2022 and substituted a decision that there was another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa.