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

This matter concerned an application by the Applicant to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for review of the Minister's decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his Special Category (Class TY) (Subclass 444) visa. The Applicant did not pass the character test due to his criminal convictions. The central dispute was whether there was "another reason" to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision, as required by the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).

The Tribunal was required to determine whether, in light of Ministerial Direction No. 110, there were sufficient grounds to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa. This involved assessing various considerations, including the protection of the Australian community, the Applicant's past conduct, the risk of future offending, and other relevant factors. The Tribunal had to weigh these considerations to ascertain if the balance tipped in favour of revocation.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal considered the Applicant's history of offending, which included numerous driving offences, dealing with stolen property, and drug possession. However, it noted that none of these offences were violent. The Tribunal specifically addressed an alleged threat to a police officer, concluding that while the Applicant was uncooperative, the threat was not sufficiently serious to constitute an offence against a public official. The Tribunal then weighed the various primary and other considerations as outlined in Ministerial Direction No. 110. It found that while some considerations weighed in favour of revocation, and Primary Consideration 1 (protection of the Australian community) weighed moderately against revocation, the overall balance tipped slightly in favour of revocation.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the decision under review and revoked the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa.