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

The applicant, Taulani, sought judicial review of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs' decision to mandatorily cancel his Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa under section 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The cancellation was based on the applicant failing to pass the character test due to having a substantial criminal record. The matter was heard by M Griffin QC SM in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the Minister's decision to cancel the applicant's visa was vitiated by jurisdictional error. This required the Tribunal to consider whether the Minister had properly applied Ministerial Direction No. 90, which sets out the non-exhaustive list of considerations to be taken into account when assessing whether a person passes the character test. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the Minister had given sufficient weight to the primary considerations, including the protection of the Australian community, the seriousness of the offending and future risk, family violence, and the best interests of minor children in Australia, as well as other considerations such as the expectations of the Australian community, impediments to removal, impact on victims, and the applicant's links to the Australian community.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the application of Ministerial Direction No. 90 to the facts of the case. It was required to assess whether the Minister had adequately considered all relevant factors and had not taken into account irrelevant considerations. The Tribunal examined the weight given to the protection of the Australian community, the seriousness of the applicant's criminal conduct, and the potential risk he posed. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered the impact of the cancellation on any minor children in Australia and the strength, nature, and duration of the applicant's ties to Australia, as well as any impediments to his removal from Australia and the impact on victims. The Tribunal's ultimate determination would depend on whether these considerations were properly weighed and applied in accordance with the law and the Direction.