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

This matter concerned an application for judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) to affirm the non-revocation of a mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's Class BB Subclass 155 Five Year Resident Return visa. The Applicant did not pass the character test, and the central dispute revolved around whether there was "another reason" to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision, particularly in light of Ministerial Direction No. 79.

The legal issues before the court were whether the AAT had erred in its application of Ministerial Direction No. 79 when considering the Applicant's character, specifically regarding the weight to be given to the protection of the Australian community. This involved assessing the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct, the risk to the community, and the Applicant's candour in providing information to the Department.

The court's reasoning focused on the Applicant's conduct and his disclosure of relevant family members. The court found that the Applicant had deliberately concealed his paternal aunt and grandparents from the Department, which was considered a significant factor in assessing his credibility and the weight to be given to his submissions. The court applied the principles outlined in Ministerial Direction No. 79, particularly concerning the protection of the Australian community, the seriousness of violent crimes, and the expectation that non-citizens be law-abiding. The court concluded that the Applicant's conduct, including the concealment of information, weighed against the revocation of the visa cancellation.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, meaning the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa was not revoked.