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

The case of *Thompson and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)* concerned the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa. The applicant, who was born in New Zealand and adopted in Australia at a young age, had a substantial criminal record, including offences of dangerous driving and family violence. The Minister had cancelled his visa under section 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) due to his substantial criminal record. The applicant sought revocation of this cancellation decision.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether there was "another reason" to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation decision, as contemplated by section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This required an assessment of countervailing considerations against the primary considerations for cancellation, such as the protection of the Australian community and the seriousness of the applicant's conduct. The applicant argued that his strong ties to the Yorta Yorta community, his identification as an Aboriginal man, and the best interests of his minor children constituted such "another reason."

The court considered the applicant's extensive criminal history, which included serious offences such as aggravated burglary, arson, police pursuits, and a violent assault on his pregnant wife during a police pursuit with their infant child. However, the court also gave significant weight to the applicant's long-term residence in Australia since childhood, his acceptance and identification with the Yorta Yorta Aboriginal community, and the impact that his removal would have on his three young children, two of whom identify as Indigenous Australians. The court found that these countervailing considerations, particularly the best interests of the minor children and the applicant's connection to the Indigenous community, outweighed the primary considerations of community protection and the seriousness of his past conduct.

Consequently, the court set aside the Minister's decision to cancel the applicant's visa and substituted it with a decision to revoke the cancellation. This meant that the applicant's visa was reinstated.