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

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, and Multicultural Affairs not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's Protection Class AZ (Subclass 866) visa. The Applicant, a citizen of [redacted], had been granted the visa after entering Australia with a fraudulent passport. Subsequently, the Applicant was convicted of murder, which resulted in a substantial criminal record and failure to pass the character test, triggering the mandatory visa cancellation. The Applicant disputed the jury's conviction for murder and raised concerns about potential breaches of Article 1F of the Refugees Convention, misconduct in custodial settings, and the prospect of indefinite detention, arguing these constituted "another reason" for revocation.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether there was "another reason" to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation under section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This involved considering the Applicant's representations as a whole, including his claims of past combat experiences and a diagnosis of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, and assessing whether these, or any other circumstances, warranted the revocation of the visa cancellation. The Tribunal was tasked with standing in the shoes of the original decision-maker and considering all available evidence at the time of its own decision.

The Tribunal applied the principles outlined in *Bettencourt v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs* [2021] FCAFC 172, which require a genuine and real consideration of substantial or significant and clearly expressed claims for revocation. The Tribunal considered the Applicant's evidence regarding his past, including his claims of being a "combat soldier" and engaging in "horrible things" during conflict, which he stated led to nightmares and a PTSD diagnosis. However, the Tribunal also had regard to Ministerial Direction No. 90, specifically clause 8.1, which mandates consideration of the protection of the Australian community from harm due to criminal activity and the seriousness of the non-citizen's conduct. The Tribunal noted that violent offending, family violence, and misconduct in custodial settings are viewed very seriously.

The Tribunal affirmed the reviewable decision, meaning the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa was not revoked. This outcome was reached within the statutory timeframe, with the Tribunal noting that it was not possible to provide detailed written reasons within the 84-day period, a procedural approach previously endorsed by the Federal Court.