Tran and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs' decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's Resident Return (Five Year) Visa. The Applicant, a citizen of Vietnam who had resided in Australia since 1988, had his visa mandatorily cancelled under s 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* due to a substantial criminal record, including convictions for violence, drugs, firearms, and theft, and having served over 8.5 years in prison. The Applicant sought revocation of this cancellation under s 501CA(4) of the Act.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether there was "another reason" why the original decision to cancel the visa should be revoked, applying Ministerial Direction No. 65. The primary considerations included the protection of the Australian community, the best interests of any minor children in Australia, and the expectations of the Australian community. Other considerations included the strength, nature, and duration of the Applicant's ties to Australia, and the extent of impediments he would face if removed from Australia.

The Tribunal found that while the Applicant had significant ties to Australia, including family members and having lived there for most of his adult life, and that he would face some initial difficulties upon return to Vietnam, these factors were outweighed by the need to protect the Australian community. The Applicant's extensive and violent criminal history, which included serious offences such as aggravated robbery and assault, led the Tribunal to infer a likelihood of future criminal conduct. The Tribunal concluded that the expectations of the Australian community, in light of the Applicant's offending, were that he should not hold a visa.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to revoke the visa cancellation. The Tribunal weighed the Applicant's ties to Australia and potential impediments to his return against the paramount considerations of community protection and community expectations, finding the latter to be of substantially greater weight in this case.