Te Huia and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by a New Zealand citizen, the applicant, against the mandatory cancellation of his Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa. The cancellation was based on the applicant failing to pass the character test due to repeated family violence offending. The dispute was heard by Senior Member R Cameron of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa should be revoked, and in doing so, to consider the protection of the Australian community from criminal activity and the best interests of minor children affected by the decision. Specifically, the Tribunal was required to assess the nature and seriousness of the applicant's conduct, the risk of re-offending, and the expectations of the Australian community, as guided by Direction 90.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's history of repeated family violence offending, including violent crimes against women and aggravated burglary, weighed very heavily against the revocation of the visa cancellation. It noted that the applicant's previous legal representatives had conceded the seriousness of his offending. While acknowledging the applicant's role as a father figure to two minor children, one of whom referred to him as "dad" and had experienced anxiety due to his absence, the Tribunal found that the protection of the Australian community from serious criminal conduct was a paramount consideration that outweighed the best interests of the children in this instance. The Tribunal affirmed the mandatory cancellation of the visa.