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

This matter concerned an application by Mr Singh for the revocation of the mandatory cancellation of his Class SN Subclass 190 Skilled-Nominated visa. The visa was mandatorily cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) because Mr Singh did not pass the character test due to having a substantial criminal record. The decision under review was the delegate's refusal to revoke this mandatory cancellation. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the matter.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether there was "another reason" why the original decision to mandatorily cancel Mr Singh's visa should be revoked, in accordance with s 501CA(4) of the Act. This determination was to be made in accordance with Direction No. 79, which outlines the framework and considerations for such decisions. The primary considerations under Direction No. 79 included the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct, the best interests of minor children in Australia, and the expectations of the Australian community.

The Tribunal reasoned that Mr Singh's criminal conduct, involving domestic violence and threats to kill, was of significant seriousness and violence, particularly against a woman. This conduct weighed heavily against revocation, aligning with the principle that Australia has a low tolerance for serious criminal behaviour by non-citizens. While other considerations such as ties to Australia and impact on victims were to be assessed, the Tribunal found that the protection of the Australian community from serious criminal conduct was a paramount consideration. The Tribunal noted that Mr Singh's offending involved repeated violent acts and threats, demonstrating a disregard for the safety of others and the law.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of Mr Singh's visa. The Tribunal concluded that the seriousness of Mr Singh's criminal conduct and the need to protect the Australian community outweighed any other considerations that might have supported revocation.