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

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate of the Minister's decision to refuse to grant the Applicant, a 36-year-old Lebanese citizen, a bridging visa. The Applicant had arrived in Australia as an illegal maritime arrival at the age of 26 and had since been granted a series of bridging visas. He had also applied for a protection visa, which was refused, and this decision was affirmed by the Immigration Assessment Authority. The Applicant subsequently became an unlawful non-citizen and was taken into immigration detention. The refusal of the bridging visa under review was based on the Applicant failing to pass the character test due to a criminal conviction for contravening a domestic violence order, for which he received a custodial sentence.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the Applicant passed the character test as defined by section 501(6) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), and if not, whether to exercise the discretion under section 501(1) to refuse to grant the visa. The delegate had found the Applicant did not pass the character test due to the serious nature of his offending and a likelihood of reoffending, with the protection of the Australian community weighing significantly in favour of refusal. The delegate also considered the expectations of the Australian community to be a significant factor.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the visa. The Tribunal found that the Applicant's lack of insight into his offending, absence of family violence education or treatment, and history of non-compliance with court orders meant the risk of reoffending could not be discounted. The Tribunal considered the matters outlined in Direction No 99, including the protection of the Australian community, the nature and seriousness of the offending, the risk of further offending, the Applicant's ties to Australia, the best interests of any children, community expectations, and impediments to removal. The Tribunal noted that the Applicant was subject to bars under sections 48, 48A, and 46A of the Migration Act, significantly limiting his future visa options onshore, even if the current refusal were set aside. The Tribunal concluded that the delegate's decision was correct and preferable.