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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Sioni, a PNG citizen, against the mandatory cancellation of his Class BB Subclass 155 Five Year Resident Return visa. The cancellation was based on Mr Sioni failing to pass the character test due to a substantial criminal record, which included sexual offences, "revenge porn" offences, and domestic violence offences. The primary legal question before the court was whether there was "another reason" for the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) to revoke the mandatory cancellation of Mr Sioni's visa under section 501CA of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).

The court was required to determine the legal test for revoking a mandatory visa cancellation under section 501CA of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). Specifically, it needed to ascertain whether the existence of "another reason" to revoke the cancellation mandated the Tribunal to proceed with revocation, without a subsequent discretionary step to consider whether it "ought" to revoke. The court also had to consider the application of Ministerial Direction No. 99, which outlines the primary considerations for decision-makers when assessing whether to revoke a mandatory visa cancellation, particularly concerning the protection of the Australian community from harm.

The court reasoned that if the Tribunal is satisfied that another reason exists to revoke the cancellation decision, it must proceed to do so, and there is no subsequent discretionary step where the Tribunal considers whether it "ought" to revoke. This interpretation was based on the wording of the legislation and relevant case law. The court found that Mr Sioni's offending was of a very serious nature, encompassing violent and sexual crimes against intimate partners, and that he had a history of repeated offending. Despite Mr Sioni's assertions of rehabilitation efforts, the court concluded that there was a moderate risk of reoffending, and this risk, in conjunction with the seriousness of his past conduct, weighed heavily against revoking the visa cancellation.

Ultimately, the court affirmed the delegate's decision to cancel Mr Sioni's visa, finding that Primary Consideration 1 (protection of the Australian community) carried a heavy level of weight against revocation. The court agreed with the respondent's submission that Mr Sioni's offending was so serious that any material risk of reoffending was unacceptable.