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

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of TNJG and the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. The dispute concerned the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). It was not contested that the applicant did not pass the character test due to a substantial criminal record, having been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more. The sole issue before the Tribunal was whether there was another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had established another reason why the mandatory cancellation of his visa should be revoked, pursuant to section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the *Migration Act*. In making this determination, the Tribunal had to consider the considerations outlined in Direction No. 79, including the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct, the best interests of minor children in Australia, and the expectations of the Australian community. The Tribunal also had to consider other relevant factors, including the applicant's international non-refoulement obligations.

The Tribunal acknowledged the applicant's extensive criminal history, largely related to drug addiction, and the seriousness of some of his offences, including assault and breach of an apprehended violence order. It gave significant weight to the government's commitment to protecting the Australian community and noted the applicant's repeated offending, even after receiving a warning about potential visa cancellation. However, the Tribunal also accepted the sincere evidence of the applicant's mother and sister regarding his remorse and efforts to reconnect with his family and religious beliefs while in detention. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that Australia's international non-refoulement obligations, in circumstances where the applicant had been found to be owed protection, outweighed the considerations favouring non-revocation.

Accordingly, the Tribunal determined that there was another reason why the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's visa should be revoked. The Tribunal set aside the original decision and substituted it with a decision to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's Class BB (Subclass 155) Five Year Resident Return visa.