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

This matter concerned an application by TNHY (the Applicant) to review a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (the Minister) not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of her permanent partner visa. The Applicant had been convicted of a money laundering offence involving a significant sum of money and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of four years, with a non-parole period of two years. It was not disputed that this conviction meant the Applicant failed the character test.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether there was "another reason" why the original decision to cancel the Applicant's visa should be revoked, as contemplated by section 501CA(3) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This required the court to undertake a balancing exercise, considering the seriousness of the offending conduct against other relevant factors, including the best interests of the Applicant's two Australian citizen children, the strength and nature of her ties to Australia, and the impediments she might face if removed from Australia. The court was also required to apply Direction 90, which outlines considerations for the exercise of the Minister's powers under section 501 of the Act.

The court reasoned that while the Applicant's money laundering offence was serious, the evidence indicated a low risk of re-offending. This assessment was supported by reports from a community corrections officer and a psychologist, who noted the Applicant's attribution of the offence to naivety and exploitation by a family member, her acknowledgement of problems, and her positive attitude towards personal change. Crucially, the court gave significant weight to the best interests of the Applicant's two young Australian citizen children, who would be significantly impacted by her removal. The court also considered the Applicant's diagnosed mental health conditions and Hepatitis B, noting that while treatment was available in Vietnam, it was not as accessible or of the same standard as in Australia.

Ultimately, the court found that the cumulative effect of these considerations constituted "another reason" to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant's visa. The reviewable decision was set aside, and it was decided that the cancellation of the Applicant's visa be revoked. The court cautioned the Applicant that continued residence in Australia was a privilege and that any further offending could lead to deportation.